Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’
In recent debates on the constitutional status of 'secularism' we can discern three positions. The first tries to overcome the absence of 'secularism' in most liberal-democratic constitutions by developing a more robust theory of constitutional secularism. The second develops the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Utrecht University School of Law
2010-11-01
|
| Series: | Utrecht Law Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.18352/ulr.138/ |
| _version_ | 1819063802301251584 |
|---|---|
| author | Veit Bader |
| author_facet | Veit Bader |
| author_sort | Veit Bader |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In recent debates on the constitutional status of 'secularism' we can discern three positions. The first tries to overcome the absence of 'secularism' in most liberal-democratic constitutions by developing a more robust theory of constitutional secularism. The second develops theories of 'alternative secularisms'. The third, defended in this article, argues that we should drop secularism as a 'cacophonous' concept from our constitutional and legal language and replace it by liberal-democratic constitutionalism. I develop an analytical taxonomy of twelve different meanings of 'secularism' based on a comparative study of Turkish and Indian Supreme Court cases on secularism, and demonstrate that they are incompatible with each other and with the hard core of liberal-democratic constitutions. Next, I criticize the respective rulings in the Turkish and Indian context. Particularly in 'militant democracies', the appeal to a principle of 'secularism' turns out to be inimical to the liberal and to the democratic 'constitutional essentials'. I end with some normative recommendations on the role of constitutional review and judicial activism. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T15:20:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-01661eab4b084aacba7dac21160fa18a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1871-515X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T15:20:28Z |
| publishDate | 2010-11-01 |
| publisher | Utrecht University School of Law |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Utrecht Law Review |
| spelling | doaj.art-01661eab4b084aacba7dac21160fa18a2022-12-21T18:59:03ZengUtrecht University School of LawUtrecht Law Review1871-515X2010-11-016383510.18352/ulr.138133Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’Veit Bader0University of AmsterdamIn recent debates on the constitutional status of 'secularism' we can discern three positions. The first tries to overcome the absence of 'secularism' in most liberal-democratic constitutions by developing a more robust theory of constitutional secularism. The second develops theories of 'alternative secularisms'. The third, defended in this article, argues that we should drop secularism as a 'cacophonous' concept from our constitutional and legal language and replace it by liberal-democratic constitutionalism. I develop an analytical taxonomy of twelve different meanings of 'secularism' based on a comparative study of Turkish and Indian Supreme Court cases on secularism, and demonstrate that they are incompatible with each other and with the hard core of liberal-democratic constitutions. Next, I criticize the respective rulings in the Turkish and Indian context. Particularly in 'militant democracies', the appeal to a principle of 'secularism' turns out to be inimical to the liberal and to the democratic 'constitutional essentials'. I end with some normative recommendations on the role of constitutional review and judicial activism.http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.18352/ulr.138/constitutional secularismliberal-democratic constitutionsconstitutional reviewmargins of appreciationmilitant democracy |
| spellingShingle | Veit Bader Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ Utrecht Law Review constitutional secularism liberal-democratic constitutions constitutional review margins of appreciation militant democracy |
| title | Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ |
| title_full | Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ |
| title_fullStr | Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ |
| title_full_unstemmed | Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ |
| title_short | Constitutionalizing secularism, alternative secularisms or liberal-democratic constitutionalism?<br>A critical reading of some Turkish, ECtHR and Indian Supreme Court cases on ‘secularism’ |
| title_sort | constitutionalizing secularism alternative secularisms or liberal democratic constitutionalism lt br gt a critical reading of some turkish ecthr and indian supreme court cases on secularism |
| topic | constitutional secularism liberal-democratic constitutions constitutional review margins of appreciation militant democracy |
| url | http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.18352/ulr.138/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT veitbader constitutionalizingsecularismalternativesecularismsorliberaldemocraticconstitutionalismltbrgtacriticalreadingofsometurkishecthrandindiansupremecourtcasesonsecularism |