Identity, religion, and the state: The origin of theocracy

Abstract

Why do states become theocracies? Johnson and Koyama (2019) analyzed the transition from a conditional-toleration equilibrium, in which feeble state capacity allows distinct religious groups to co-exist under a system of religion-based identity rules, to a religious-toleration equilibrium, in which a strong state applies secular general rules without the need for religion as a legitimizing force. This implies that religious legitimacy and high state capacity are substitutes. We explore the alternative possibility that religious legitimacy and a strong state can be complements; that is, religion and high state capacity work together to extract resources from the citizenry. The result is an equilibrium of religious rather than secular general rules in which high state capacity and religion reinforce each other-a theocracy. An empirical analysis of the transition from premodern to modern theocracy, based on a unique dataset of religion and politics in world history, indicates that the adoption of general rules in the modern era differed systematically between societies in which strong state capacity was a complement rather than a substitute for religion.

The Influence of the Soviet Regime on the Religious Beliefs of Ethnic Minorities

“…Religious policy was replaced by militant atheism. The teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin became new dogmas (Coşgel et al, 2020;Engel-Di Mauro, 2020). One of the regime's main opponents was Islam and Sharia law (Webber et al, 2020).…”

“…The policy of separation of the church from the state, and schools from the church indicated the possibility of free activity of priests of any cults on the territory of the Soviet Republic, on the condition that they would not encroach on the possibility of governing the country (Andrews, 2016). The new Soviet state's behaviour indicates that the new state's policy's main goal was to undercut the church's positions (Coşgel et al, 2020). When the church is forcibly separated from the state with the premise that the state becomes anti-religious, it is no longer possible to talk about the neutrality of the Soviet state in the issue of religious relations (Coşgel et al, 2020).…”

“…The new Soviet state's behaviour indicates that the new state's policy's main goal was to undercut the church's positions (Coşgel et al, 2020). When the church is forcibly separated from the state with the premise that the state becomes anti-religious, it is no longer possible to talk about the neutrality of the Soviet state in the issue of religious relations (Coşgel et al, 2020).…”

“…In August 1918, the People's Commissariat of Justice issued an instruction "On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church". The instruction covered churches, any other parts of religious societies created for the practice of any kind of worship, any societies that have limited the circle of their members exclusively to persons of the same religion (Coşgel et al, 2020). In November 20, 1917, there was an appeal of the Council of People's Commissars "To all working Muslims of Russia and the East", in which all beliefs were declared free and inviolable.…”

“…However, it is necessary to understand the essence of the religious policy of the Soviet state. The teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin were presented as new dogmas, which led to a not very rosy path of development for all denominations that fell under the yoke of Soviet power (Coşgel et al, 2020). The main purpose of studying this issue is to understand the processes and conditions created by the Soviet regime for each denomination, in which a special role is played by the gradual adaptation of religious figures to new realities and their use as another means of social control over the masses (Foster et al, 2017).…”