By Simon Crhichley

“(…) is politics conceivable without religion? The answer is obviously affirmative as the evidence of various secular political theories testifies. But is politics practicable without religion? That is the question. And that is the question that Rousseau’s thinking of politics faces. Can politics become effective as a way of shaping, motivating and mobilizing a people or peoples without some sort of dimension—if not foundation—that is religious, that is without some sort of appeal to transcendence, however substantive or otherwise that appeal might be? I do not think so. Or rather, I no longer think so. Thus, the exemplarity of Rousseau to my mind consists in the fact that he gives us the definitive expression of the modern conception of politics: that is, politics is the break with any conception of nature and natural law and has to be based in the concepts of popular sovereignty, association, rigorous equality and collective autonomy understood as the self-determination of a people. And yet, in order for this modern conception of politics to become effective it has to have a religious dimension, a moment of what the Romans used to call theologia civilis, civil theology. That is, the secularization that seems to define modern politics has to acknowledge a moment of what Emilio Gentile calls sacralization, the transformation of a political entity like a state, nation, class or party into a sacred entity, which means that it becomes transcendent, unchallengeable and intangible. So, can a political collectivity maintain itself in existence, that is, maintain its unity and identity, without a moment of the sacred, that is, without religion, rituals and something that we can only call belief? Once again, I do not think so. Might we not at least conceive of the possibility of redefining the secularization that is believed to be definitive of modernity with the idea of modern politics as a metamorphosis of sacralization, where modern forms of politics, whether liberal democracy, fascism, soviet communism, national socialism and the rest have to be grasped as new articulations and, indeed, mutations of the sacred? Before continuing, it should be noted that I have come to this conclusion with no particular joy, as someone with little enthusiasm (in the literal sense of the term) for religion, whether organized or disorganized. And I say this not simply in response to the chronic re-theologization of politics through which we are living, which makes this time certainly the darkest period in my lifetime, and arguably for much longer. At the heart of the horror of the present is the intrication of politics and religion, an intrication defined by violence, and this is what I would like to begin to think through. I want to do this not in order to break the connection between politics and religion, but to acknowledge the limitations of any completely secular leftist politics. It seems to me that the left has all too easily ceded the religious ground to the right and it is this ground that needs to be regained in a coherent, long-term and tenacious political war of position. As Gramsci famously wrote, ‘socialism is the religion that is needed to kill off Christianity’. As we will see presently, the relation of politics to religion and their intrication raises for me the question of the necessity of fiction, of both the seeming necessity for a divine fiction at the basis of politics and the possibility of what Wallace Stevens would call a supreme fiction in politics.”

Read if full at Continental Philosophy Review

By Jeffrey W. Rubin and Emma Sokoloff-Rubin

“Today, once again, the idea of equitable development doesn’t seem radical, but rather makes common sense. And the potential for a hemispheric alliance is stronger than ever. Democracies in Latin America have already produced innovative strategies for tackling tough problems, from racial exclusion to urban poverty to migration, and they have forged progressive coalitions to support these new approaches. In Buenos Aires, factories run cooperatively by workers – factories that were taken over when the owners ran them into bankruptcy – compete efficiently in the market. In Rio de Janeiro, kids in shantytowns join music groups to fight drug trafficking and violence, while in San Cristobal, Chiapas, Mayan Indians organize transportation systems and marketing networks in urban neighborhoods where 30 years ago they would have been forbidden to live. And through hometown associations in the United States, Mexican migrants send back money to their communities of origin, where remittances are matched three-for-one by the Mexican government in an investment program overseen by the migrants themselves.

This is the face of democratic innovation in our hemisphere. For the first time ever, the vast majority of key actors in Latin America, from businesspeople to militaries, middle classes to grassroots social movements, play by the democratic rules of the game and respond to disagreement with counterproposals rather than violence. And for the first time ever, a U.S. President speaking a language of cooperation and dialogue could transform a century of distrust into a forward-looking hemispheric alliance.”

Read full article at http://blogs.reuters.com/

By Jeffrey Rubin and Emma Sokoloff-Rubin

“From the 1950s to the 1970s, the US government supported Latin
American militaries as they ousted democratic governments and tortured
opponents to silence dissent. In the 1980s, as Latin Americans
reconstructed fragile democracies, US leaders encouraged the new
governments to subscribe to the logic of unregulated markets. The
result was that people across the hemisphere were abandoned
economically by their governments just as they became citizens.

Today, as Obama works to undo the damage of the Bush era, he should also promote socioeconomic reform in Latin America that
brings material well-being and cultural inclusion to poor majorities.”

Read full article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0313/p09s02-coop.html

Eric Hobsbawm

Daily Times – Pakistan
November 24, 2008

Read it

Excerpt:

(…) it is now clear that the utopia of a stateless, global laissez-faire market will not arrive. Most of the world’s population, and certainly those under liberal-democratic regimes deserving of the name, will continue to live in operationally effective states, even though in some unhappy regions state power and administration have virtually disintegrated. Politics will therefore continue. Democratic elections will go on.

In short, we shall face the problems of the 21st century with a collection of political mechanisms dramatically ill-suited to dealing with them. They are, in effect, confined within the borders of nation states, whose numbers are growing, and confront a global world that lies beyond their range of operations. It is not even clear how far they can apply within a vast and heterogeneous territory that does possess a common political framework, such as the European Union. They face and compete with a world economy, operating through quite different units to which considerations of political legitimacy and common interest do not apply — transnational firms. Above all, they face an age when the impact of human action on nature and the globe has become a force of geological proportions. Their solution, or mitigation, will require measures for which, almost certainly, no support will be found by counting votes or measuring consumer preferences. This is not encouraging for the long-term prospects of either democracy or the globe.

In short, we face the third millennium like the apocryphal Irishman who, asked for the way to Ballynahinch, pondered and said: “If I were you, I wouldn’t start from here.”

But here is where we are starting from.