Religious Affairs Office

During the Biennial of Thought, a wide variety of venues and organisations from Barcelona become the setting of activities and reflection sessions on crucial topics in criticism and thinking today. This year, these activities were framed within the first edition of European Capital of Democracy, with Barcelona as its first stop.

The Office for Religious Affairs (OAR) participated in this philosophical and reflective event with the activity ‘Religions and democracies: Perspectives and dialogues on governance and religion’. It was held on Friday 11 October at the Urgell Civic Centre and revolved around the connections, potentiality and materials found in both democracy and spirituality. The session, which was led and moderated by Oumaya Amghar Ait Moussa, advisor of the Executive Presidency and General Direction of the IEMed, was divided into two spaces. The first one was an academic roundtable to provide context, with two experts in two different phenomena where the connection between religion and democracy (or the democratic drive behind participation) can be found.

Estrella Samba-Campos, PhD in Arab Studies and multidisciplinary researcher specialising in the role of text and orality in the construction of knowledge and narratives, presented the case of Sierra Leone, where she was born, which is characterised by a profound cultural and religious hybridisation, especially between the Muslim majority and the 20% of the population who are Christians. ‘Sierra Leone is a secular republic where ‘religious tolerance [which she views as religious pluralism] has become a hallmark’, the speaker began. Religious and cultural contact started in the eighteenth century, after which ‘different Afro-descendant peoples were pushed to Sierra Leone, where they built connections with Islam and autochthonous beliefs’. Gemma Celigueta Comerma, member of the Research Group on Indigenous and Afro-American Cultures (CINAF), in turn, offered a view of the indigenous peoples of Guatemala. In that country, there is such a diversity of communities that the contacts are both syncretic and anti-syncretic: indigenous, non-indigenous, Catholic, indigenous Christian, evangelical, Mayan spirituality and more.

In both countries, the close contact among beliefs is what fosters the implementation of practices in which the religious tradition intertwines with democratic practice. In Sierra Leone, the connections among denominations has given rise to institutions like the Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone, an inter-denominational organisation that promotes things like inter-religious ceremonies. The council is nonetheless the institutionalisation of a collective stance in the country, demonstration of ‘a religious pragmatism in which there is no rigidity or restrictive structure’. On the other hand, the reality of indigenous Christianity in Guatemala has given rise to what are known as ‘confraries’ (brotherhoods), which were founded as colonial organisations for the twofold purpose of worshipping the saint and managing lands and assets. Nonetheless, they began to get involved in local politics in the nineteenth century, when they started a rotation or ‘system of posts’ in which the mayor alternated holding the power with the main brotherhood. However, this system eroded considerably in the 1940s, when ‘the political parties expelled the indigenous peoples from the government’, which Celigueta believes exemplifies a clash between ‘the forms of organisation we are familiar with here and other kinds of participation that we do not consider democratic’.

This is why the speaker advocated harnessing this clash to redefine the concept of democracy beyond the conception of a ‘system of political parties that have been very anti-democratic in a region with a great deal of corruption, where they have unilaterally excluded half the population, the indigenous community’. This is important mainly in a context in which these communities are taking over the democratic struggle, and are even ‘moribund’, and Celigueta defended this by referring to motorway blockades set up by two brotherhoods in 2023 to respond to a judicial coup d’état which sought to overturn the victory of a candidate ‘that the oligarchies were not interested in’. In Celigueta’s opinion, actions like this one are the proof of ‘these brotherhoods’ incredible capacity for mobilisation and their collective thinking, over individual thinking, that may not fit with the preponderance of individuality in our organisations’.

In Sierra Leone, communality has given rise to an identity-based, relational and spiritual form, the syncretic form of ‘Christian-Islam, which is not backed by the rigid structuralism that is the hallmark of other credos’(*): ‘In Sierra Leone, you won’t find an organisation that structures Christian-Muslim belief; everything is organic and fluid; it is created and transformed in the family setting in the guise of a pedagogy of religious tolerance’, Samba said. This is what she believes could be taken into account in Western democracies: ‘Community is essential, but in a country with a rigid structure, where little groups wield a great deal of political and economic influence, this flexibility is not allowed, and addressing religious ignorance is essential in shifting these groups’ influence’. These efforts also have to be made in Sierra Leone, she said, where certain evangelical and Muslim groups are gradually ‘changing the rules of the game, using influence and displacing the fluid architecture in place, perverting the original permeability’.

Still, in both countries a Western democratic model has been put into place as a colonial legacy, although local forms of organisation within collective spirituality still survive, which defy these first models. ‘They are practices that don’t understand certain structures’, Samba concluded, ‘and inserting them into democracy enables these praxes of credo to participate’, which Celigueta believes opens up ‘the possibility to explore a dialogue which we find very difficult to imagine without experiencing it as a betrayal of the idea of an unshakeable essence’.

The second part of ‘Religions and democracies’ was a roundtable of experiences in which representatives of three religious communities in Barcelona shared their practices regarding citizen participation and internal democratic organisation. First, the speakers introduced their respective organisations. Isaac Llopis Fuster presented the Young Seventh-Day Adventists of Catalonia, an organisation that not only holds activities for young Seventh-Day Adventists in Catalonia but also creates a social community and spreads its worldview in order to be ‘another member in the dialogue with other religions and other social realities’. Next, Llum Mascaray Olivera presented the Brotherhood of Catholic Works Action (GOAC), an organisation belonging to Catholic Action that was founded in 1946 to ‘promote the issue of workers and social work’. Finally, the Association of Bahá’í Women of Barcelona was represented by its president, Ryma Sheermohammadi, who highlighted her association’s efforts on behalf of gender equality, human rights and diversity from the tradition of Bahá’í, a religion based on the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh that believes in the unity of all religions in the world.

After the introductions, the speakers explained how their organisations contribute to strengthening democracy through dialogue, working on citizen values and participation. Llum Mascaray Olivera described the defence of democracy as one of the cornerstones of the GOAC: ‘We practise a kind of Christianity rooted in people’s suffering, and we are wherever each person can work for a better world and promote democratisation’. In Ryma Sheermohammadi‘s opinion, this is a principle of all religions, which ‘spiritually educate people so they can improve their own lives, but they also have a social responsibility, and this is democratic in a much broader dimension than just political’. ‘Consultation plays a key role here’, she continued, ‘listening to the other’s voice to find common points to build on’. Isaac Llopis Fuster underscored the role of young people: ‘They say that young people are useless, don’t know much and should just listen. But young people bring a fresh perspective, a lack of prejudices and motivation. Christianity was a young movement that changed the West. Why not include young people’s incredible drive in the social organisation?’

This idea of listening and introducing people into the debate is essential to deal with today’s challenges, such as gender. Sheermohammadi framed it as a ‘change in perception about why we’re in the world and what our role is, and translating that into a common good for others, working through complicity and equality, because the gender issue affects everyone’. ‘The goal is to find out what’s happening’, Mascaray concurred, ‘not with the eyes on our head but with the eyes in our heart, to listen to voices, depart from the text and start acting to support people and environments. Women can change mindsets, seek alternatives to what we have been handed’.

Next, the speakers reflected on their position on the separation of Church and State as a cornerstone of many of today’s democracies, and they concurred that this separation is appropriate, but that doesn’t mean that religions are not political, and work is needed to promote dialogue. Llopis put it like this: ‘We have to be the agora, contributing ideas and sharing to transform with actions that are somehow political, like being agents of good or giving hope, even though they have nothing to do with the government. In the sphere of the State, we only ask that there be room for all religions, because with extreme secularism religious ignorance has spread, when religion is actually full of stories.’ In a similar vein, Mascaray also mentioned the body politic of the GOAC: ‘Loving our neighbour cannot be one of our main commands unless we get involved, especially us, who with our faith in Jesus also have faith in the workers’ movement’. Similarly, Sheermohammadi condemned partisanship in religion: ‘In a world where tendencies forcing us to choose a party, to hate and compete, prevail, religion cannot have this purpose. Still, what we seek in the Bahá’í religion is a dialogue with governments so that they can learn from them when legislating according to people’s interests.’

Following this thread, the speakers further explored the ways religions can positively influence democratic debates and contribute to social justice. From the perspective of working with young people, Llopis claimed that they have to be ‘taught to create community, especially in diversity, because today everything is too reduced to screens and indifference, and they have to understand that we’re social beings, that we have the need and ability to engage in dialogue and actively listen to each other’. In Sheermohammadi’s opinion, religions’ contribution to social justice can come from training in transversality: ‘People tend to talk about activism in very limited ways, but I think it’s important to train people in transversal principles that show how the different elements of society are intertwined, getting everyone to participate and working towards the field of action’. Mascaray, in turn, presented two actions in which the GOAC participates in public spaces to contribute to social justice through collective action. The first is an annual gathering in Plaça de Sant Jaume as part of the Week for Peace – Arcadi Oliveres, in which multiple beliefs, convictions and communities gather to ‘nourish our inner world, both individual and collective’, and secondly a massive, multi-denominational prayer gathering in front of the Immigration Detention Centre (CIE), which is also held every year.

To close the roundtable, and continuing with the topic of dialogue, which is so necessary to promote justice, the speakers talked about how and why their organisations want to foster inter-religious dialogue. Llopis wondered: ‘Are we exposed enough? Barcelona’s cultural diversity is impressive, but the key is exposure, going into public, because if you have no exposure you stay within your little circle, where the questions are easier and you master the language, whereas other questions and meanings arise outside it’. Similarly, Mascaray bemoaned the fact that the GOAC still ‘has to promote this interaction and this dialogue’, but she stressed that ‘in the sphere of the defence of the public services, we often find people with other beliefs with whom we work jointly in actions on behalf of social justice’. On the other end of the spectrum, Sheermohammadi said that Bahá’í belief is itself an exercise in inter-religiosity, because it ‘believes in all the world’s religions, meaning that what another one says is essentially the same as what I believe’.

And thus concluded the activity ‘Religions and democracies’, underscoring the importance of inter-religious dialogue, which Sheermohammadi described as ‘necessary for mutual understanding and essential for peace processes, which is another point in common shared by all beliefs’. This was also one of the conclusions of the first roundtable, stressing the political potentiality that religions have beyond the usual structures.

(*) A religious identity that is characterised by the fact that the person fully embraces both Islam and Christianity, considers both traditions their own and is recognised and accepted by the community as such.