Written by Jimmy Marcos Immanuel

Both John Rawls and Abdullahi An-Naim’s consider diversity and/or pluralism, with religion being one of the aspects of diversity, to be a given fact, especially in a society and/or state. Starting from that fact, they give their view on how religion has to be placed in public sphere and/or state. Public reason is central to Rawls’ view, An-Naim’s focuses more on civic reason, which is similar to Rawls’ but specific for Islamic context.

To Rawls, public reason is a political idea. It belongs to the category of politics, and it is related to discourse of religion and democracy. Its content is given by the family of (liberal) political conceptions of justice satisfying the criterion of reciprocity. It doesn’t trespass upon religious beliefs and injunction insofar as these are consistent with the essential constitutional liberties, including the freedom of religion and liberty of conscience. So, there is no war between religion and democracy. The conflicts between democracy and reasonable religious doctrines, and among reasonable religious doctrines themselves, are greatly mitigated and contained within the bounds of reasonable principles of justice in a constitutional democratic society. Almost similar to Rawls, an-Na’im tried to separate Islam from the institutions of the state, but to preserve the political rights of muslims (Islam) at state level.

Rawls and An-Na’im’s views are actually quite similar and can be applied to the concept of the democratic state, which contains three pillars or axis. These pillars are: state/government, civil society (refers to ordinary people), and market society. The three pillars are also considered as three axis of power in managing the public sphere. They are related to and interconnected with each others, but each of them also has rules and bases that are different from each other. One thing that they have in common, is that are all concerned with the public sphere and with managing it. In this case, the public sphere can also be called civil society, though the term is not used as merely one pillar (civil society: consisted of people/society) but as a new part of those pillars– with new spirit– as a sphere in bridging the pillars. That sphere makes sure that every representation of the three pillars can stand/attend to - and has the same position as other representations in comprehensively managing that sphere and/or state. This sphere is useful to build and progress discourses on state and good practice (it is similar to Aristoteles' “civil community”). Rawls and an-Na’im’s views can both be placed in that sphere, but have to be separated when they are back to each pillar position. After meeting or having the same position in the sphere, they will be enlightened (although this word is little bit problematic) and have different perspectives than before. The different perspectives will make them aware of their position, and they will know what they have to do when there are global issues that involve more than one pillar. This is not about who will win or lose, but it's fundamentally to how every element in a state gets engaged to participate in maintaining the state.

Some people and paradigms argue that civil society is seen as the opponent of state, but in this case, as public sphere, is not seen as an opponent, but rather as a sphere that makes it possible for everyone in a state to give contributions and/or criticisms for the sake of a better (‘good’) state; government can meet ordinary society and market, and so on. Some signs of this sphere are equality of citizenship (state/government and market society are also a part of citizenship, and of course the civil/ordinary society), toleration, freedom of association and expression, freedom of religion, democratic government, free market capitalism, globalization, exploitation of resources, etc. that represent the pillars. It’s an ideal form of civil society, and every state (it must be a democratic state with democracy as its system and spirit) has to prepare itself to have healthy communication and work together with each other for the public sphere or state.

Civil society in this discourse automatically requires something that really has its foundation in the ideal sphere or civil society itself. The most important thing is to educate people and to raise awareness amongst them, about their role to build and manage the sphere. People who attend this society/sphere have to have good thoughts and can be part of the discourses within this sphere in order to create dynamic processes (progress). It is problematic, but it is also a stimulant for the government to bridge the difference and educate people on their roles, and to show people opportunities of critical thinking without the need to leave your own culture or knowledge. With this pattern the state can exist well and develop in many ways. This can be a source for civilization.

Besides, to realize the ideal of educated people, with a high level of awareness in a state, every within the three pillars has the responsibility to work together. It is a common responsibility in managing civil society or the public sphere; to ‘give and take’ from each other; to share values, knowledge and skills; to have a representative government, to have traditional/cultural alliances, etc. We should be optimistic here.