Theocracy: Can Democracy Survive Fundamentalism?

During the past forty years the various renditions of Fundamentalism have been far more active and effective in propagating their faith than traditional mainstream religions. That has been particularly true of Islamic, Christian and Jewish Fundamentalism. Furthermore, Fundamentalist groups of various religious orientations have proven themselves not content merely to be invited to the table of political policy discussions.

Fundamentalists have become far more uncompromising in their convictions, and far more comprehensive in their goals to change their respective societies. They are convinced that their principles are the only absolutely true ones for everyone and in every situation. They have increasingly demonstrated that they are not content to play a part in political policy discussions. They seem convinced that their way is the only way to accomplish God’s purposes.

Fundamentalist faith is often blind faith. Many of its adherents have not been satisfied merely to participate in political dialogue or to achieve compromise with others over the long run. Increasingly, Fundamentalists have striven to impose control over others, rather than simply seeking to protect and exercise their personal religious freedoms.

There is a serious question facing modern democracies all over the world, and that question is this: How will democracies cope with and maintain their integrity under the increasing influence of growing numbers of Fundamentalist citizens? Democracy is not naturally well suited to accommodate Fundamentalism, nor is Fundamentalism naturally well-suited to tolerate pluralistic democracy.

Many nations do not permit their citizens to share dual citizenship with other nations. That restriction is based on the reasonable concern that their allegiance to another government might compromise the best interests of the nation due to their potentially conflicted interests as citizens.

Fundamentalists have prime directives and core allegiances, which limit their ability to participate in democratic societies without making every effort to extend their convictions to others. That predisposition tends to be uncompromising, ever-expanding and relentless. It creates a conflict of interest, not so much for Fundamentalists because they firmly believe that any nation would be best served by following their beliefs and values. But it does create a conflict for pluralistic democracies, which may not want Fundamentalist values, let alone doctrines, to be imposed on all their citizens. That conflict of interest is equivalent to dual citizenship.