Res Publica

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 107–123

Religious Political Parties and the Limits of Political Liberalism



Political parties have only recently become a subject of investigation in political theory. In this paper I analyse religious political parties in the context of John Rawls’s political liberalism. Rawlsian political liberalism, I argue, overly constrains the scope of democratic political contestation and especially for the kind of contestation channelled by parties. This restriction imposed upon political contestation risks undermining democracy and the development of the kind of democratic ethos that political liberalism cherishes. In this paper I therefore aim to provide a broader and more inclusive understanding of ‘reasonable’ political contestation, able to accommodate those parties (including religious ones) that political liberalism, as customarily understood, would exclude from the democratic realm. More specifically, I first embrace Muirhead and Rosenblum’s (Perspectives on Politics 4: 99–108 2006) idea that parties are ‘bilingual’ links between state and civil society and I draw its normative implications for party politics. Subsequently, I assess whether Rawls’s political liberalism is sufficiently inclusive to allow the presence of parties conveying religious and other comprehensive values. Due to Rawls’s thick conceptions of reasonableness and public reason, I argue, political liberalism risks seriously limiting the number and kinds of comprehensive values which may be channelled by political parties into the public political realm, and this may render it particularly inhospitable to religious political parties. Nevertheless, I claim, Rawls’s theory does offer some scope for reinterpreting the concepts of reasonableness and public reason in a thinner and less restrictive sense and this may render it more inclusive towards religious partisanship.


Religious political parties Political liberalism Public reason Reasonableness Unreasonable parties 


  1. Bellamy, Richard, and Martin Hollis. 1995. Liberal justice: political and metaphysical. The Philosophical Quarterly 45: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkes, Niyazi. 1964. The development of secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonotti, Matteo. Forthcoming. 2011. Conceptualising political parties: a normative framework. Politics 31.Google Scholar
  4. Capoccia, Giovanni. 2002. Anti-system parties: a conceptual reassessment. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14: 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capoccia, Giovanni. 2004. Defence of democracy in inter-war Europe: a past still present? In Western democracies and the new extreme right challenge, ed. R. Eatwell, and C. Mudde, 83–107. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Caygill, Howard, and Alan Scott. 1996. The Basic Law versus the basic norm? The case of the Bavarian crucifix order. Political Studies 44: 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Çinar, Menderes. 2006. Turkey’s transformation under the AKP rule. The Muslim World 96: 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, Joshua. 2004. Minimalism about human rights: the most we can hope for? The Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowder, George. 2002. Liberalism and value pluralism. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Davison, Andrew. 2003. Turkey, a ‘secular’ state? The challenge of description. South Atlantic Quarterly 102: 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenach, Eldon. 2000. The next religious establishment: national identity and political theology in post-protestant America. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. European People’s Party. 1992. Basic programme. IX EPP Congress, Athens, November. Accessed 24 Aug 2010.
  14. Galston, William. 2002. Liberal pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenawalt, Kent. 1995. Private consciences and public reasons. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Issacharoff, Samuel. 2007. Fragile Democracies. Harvard Law Review 120: 1406–1467.Google Scholar
  17. Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Modood, Tariq, and Riva Kastoryano. 2006. Secularism and the accommodation of Muslims in Europe. In Multiculturalism, Muslims and citizenship: a European approach, ed. T. Modood, A. Triandafyllidou, and R. Zapata-Barrero, 162–168. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Moller Okin, Susan. 1994. Political liberalism, justice, and gender. Ethics 105: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muirhead, Russell, and Nancy L. Rosenblum. 2006. Political liberalism versus ‘the great game of politics’: the politics of political liberalism. Perspectives on Politics 4: 99–108.Google Scholar
  22. Mulhall, Stephen, and Adam Swift. 1996. Liberals and communitarians, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Parekh, Bhikhu. 1999. The voice of religion in political discourse. In Religion, politics and peace, ed. Leroy S. Rouner, 63–84. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  24. Parekh, Bhikhu. 2006. Rethinking multiculturalism, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice (Revised Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness: a restatement (ed. Erin Kelly). Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rawls, John. 2005a. Political liberalism (Expanded Edition). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rawls, John. 2005b. The idea of public reason revisited. In Political liberalism (Expanded Edition), Rawls, J., 435–490. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2003. Religious parties, religious political identity, and the cold shoulder of liberal democratic thought. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6: 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the side of the angels: an appreciation of parties and partisanship. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Scheffler, Samuel. 1994. The appeal of political liberalism. Ethics 105: 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spinner-Halev, Jeff. 2000. Surviving diversity: religion and democratic citizenship. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sturzo, Luigi. 1947. The philosophic background of christian democracy. The Review of Politics 9: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tank, Pinar. 2005. Political Islam in Turkey: a state of controlled secularity. Turkish Studies 6: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tepe, Sultan. 2005. Religious parties and democracy: a comparative assessment of Israel and Turkey. Democratization 12: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenar, Leif. 1995. Political liberalism: an internal critique. Ethics 106: 32–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, Jonathan, and Lea Ypi. 2010. Rethinking the modern prince: partisanship and the democratic ethos. Political Studies 58: 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1997. The role of religion in decision and discussion of political issues. In Religion in the public square, eds. R. Audi, and N. Wolterstorff, 67–120. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  40. Yavuz, M. Hakan. 2003. Islamic political identity in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yavuz, M. Hakan. 2009. Secularism and Muslim democracy in Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics/Department of PhilosophyUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations