Should Tunisia adapt a “secular” constitution? (thoughts in the wake of the "Jasmine Revolution")

Let me start with my conclusion: it's up to the Tunisian people. I have no interest in telling the Tunisian people what they should do (that would seem a bit contrary to the principles of self-determination, democracy, etc.). I find this issue a very interesting one, however, and share these thoughts out of my personal interest, and as someone who lived in Tunisia in the past, who loves Tunisia, and who taught American history and religion in America here to Tunisian students.

Tunisia's constitution, which has been in effect since independence in 1956, has said that Tunisia is a state whose language is Arabic and whose religion is Islam. I say “has said,” because the constitution has just been suspended after the Jasmine Revolution. There will be elections for a council that will write a new constitution.
 

One of the questions which is being debated is whether the new constitution should establish Islam as the state religion, or whether Tunisia should be a “secular” state, with a separation of religion and politics, and equal rights and freedoms given to all people, whatever their faith (Tunisia has a small number of Jewish citizens, a few B'hai, some Christians, and a few others, e.g., those who consider themselves atheists; but the vast majority of the Tunisian people are Muslim of one kind or another).

"The Tunisian people = Muslim + Christian + Jew"

I was in a long and interesting discussion recently with some Tunisian friends about this matter. I wish I could spend more time here, and hear what others are thinking.

Here are some of my thoughts:

On the one hand, I think it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, for a decision to be made to adapt a secular constitution, due to the fact that the vast majority of Tunisians are Muslim and think of Tunisia as a Muslim country, and, I think, in reaction to the previous regimes stifling and opposing religion.

Tunisia has in effect been “secular,” in an unofficial though negative way (without freedom of religion or protection of anyone's rights). The Bourghiba and then Ben Ali governments had a stranglehold on religion, nationalizing the religious establishments, taking control of the mosques, and going so far as to shut the mosques except at the prayer times (the pattern would normally be for the mosques to be open all the time, for people to pray, read, have study groups, etc.). There has not been freedom of religion (nor of expression) in Tunisia, in recent decades.

I'm afraid that an officially "secular" constitution would be interpreted by many Tunisians as meaning an adoption of atheism (I've heard people voice this), and be seen as a further step against religion. Of course, in the true meaning of secular, the government is not atheistic, and it is not implied that the people are atheists, but simply that no religion is officially established and supported by the government. The perception of the Tunisian people on this matter is an important one that needs to be addressed, in any discussion of a secular constitution.

A key question for the Tunisian people to consider, then, is whether a secular constitution would be a step forward (a favorable development) for Muslims and for Islam in Tunisia, or a step backward?

It's fairly clear that a secular constitution, and true freedom of religion, of conscience, of practice, would benefit non-Muslims in Tunisia, or Muslims who for whatever reason decided not to follow Islam, or even to change religion.

It's my opinion that it could also be a step forward for Muslims as a whole, in a couple of respects:

1. If everyone now were given freedom of conscience and of religion (with the normal boundaries in a secular state, that the activities do not represent a real threat to the state or to others in the state), all Muslims would benefit. Devout, practicing Muslims would be free to practice as they like. They would be free to call others to such practice. But they would not be free to force anyone to practice Islam in a certain way, which would be a benefit for everyone who is Muslim but who doesn't want to pray or to fast Ramadan or whatever. It seems to me that this could be a way of applying the Qur'anic verse, "la ikraha fid-din" ("there is no compulsion in religion," 2:255).
   
   
2. I would also argue, with the history of religion in America as an example, that in the long run, the health of religion in Tunisia would be strengthened more with a (healthy, true) secular constitution than with an establishment of Islam.
   
   
   Through most of the long history of Christianity, there was establishment of religion. And one of the things which unfortunately always accompanied this establishment was whatever Christian group had power, persecuting the other Christian groups (the Inquisition as a particularly brutal example). Even in the American colonies at the beginning (i.e., for nearly 200 years), there was establishment of religion and mistreatment of whatever Christian groups were not established (with the exception of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania – Baptists and Quakers were the two Christian groups which strongly opposed establishment of religion on principle, from the beginning). It took until the time of writing the Constitution for the people to come to the point of realizing that to establish a state in which they could all live together in freedom and peace, they must separate “church” and “state.” Thus they adapted the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution, forbidding any establishment of religion, and guaranteeing freedom of conscience.
   
   
   Note that for a long time, the official position of the Catholic church was against this separation (i.e., they were for establishment of religion). Thus the problem Kennedy faced in the 1960 election, with people asking, if Kennedy is elected, who will he listen to, the American people or the Pope? But American Catholic leaders, long before the Vatican, began advocating an embrace of separation of church and state, on the grounds that the church itself was more healthy having to “compete” in the “free marketplace of ideas.” That is, without government support, the Church – any Church – has to make itself relevant to the people, cannot in any way force compliance. (And all churches, all people, are protected against any church or religious group oppressing them.)

I would make an argument that a separation of religion and politics in Tunisia would not only be better for every individual, in giving them the right of choice, the freedom of conscience, to believe and practice what they are convinced of; I would argue that it would also be for the health of religion and religious faith and religious people, in allowing and making them to stand on their own feet. And again, it would be a big step forward from the past 55 years of lack of true religious freedom for anyone.

The big question is, can this move be seen as a positive move by Muslims, rather than as another attack on them and on the state of Islam in Tunisia by the nonreligious Tunisians? And this is rooted in the question, can Muslims interpret the Qur'an as supporting separation, or is the only interpretation of Islamic teaching the medieval one, that Islam should be established?

It took Christians something like 1500 years to get free of the conviction, rooted in Constantine's establishment of Christianity as the state religion, that establishment was God's will. I would argue, and my impression is that most Christians around the world would agree, that the Church (every church) has been healthier since being set free from the support and the control of the state.

These are heady days in Tunisia, with people talking about the evils of dictatorship and the desire for freedom and democracy. When it comes to freedom of conscience and freedom of religious practice, what will Tunisians decide? This is an historic moment, and I will continue to watch the unfolding of events with great interest.