What are the basic values of Orthodoxy and Democracy and do they have a common denominator? Is democracy a notion of emptied content and how does Orthodoxy understand democracy? The answers to these, as well as many other questions, were heard by more than 40 young people at the PolitiKAS debate on the topic What connects Orthodoxy and Democracy. The seventh in a series of debates was held on Tuesday, November 17, 2020, via the ZOOM platform. Marko Vekovic, assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, and Dejan Mackovic, Orthodox theologian, talked about this topic with the present participants. The debate was moderated by Milos Vulic, young professional engaged in master's studies in Religion in Society, Culture and European Integration.

Democracy: value and order system

Dejan Mackovic pointed out that when it comes to the relationship between Orthodoxy and democracy, it is very important to understand the existence of two spheres. The first approach is internal, which provides an answer to the question of what democracy represents for the church as a system of values, while the second approach is related to the church's attitude towards democracy, as a state system. Mackovic believes that the church is in fact a democratic society, because democracy comes from the Christian society itself. The meaning of the Orthodox faith is to preserve the diversity of the persons of the Holy Trinity, in which the church shows its democracy. Giving examples from both the New Testament and the common position of the apostles, he once again reminds of the constant church democracy. When it comes to the participation of the people, the church foresaw the participation of the masses, and then, out of fear in some cases, limited the same participation.

Emancipation and the role of the church

What was the role of the church when it comes to human rights? Mackovic reminds that the church appreciated the dignity of the human person, and that this is best reflected in the role it played in Roman society, trying to prepare it for the level of giving in to established principles. Women, children and slaves were considered social property, and the task of the church was to advocate for the equal treatment of these marginalized groups and their socialization, such as attendance at liturgies. Today, although we are far from these extreme restrictions, there is something we can call limited democracies in which exist church that functions in such a system, he pointed out.

Syncretism of the state and the church

In church circles, we can often hear that the church is a perfect society. This by no means that all Christians are perfect, but that the church is a self-sufficient system that can exist without anyone. In support of that, there are epochs when it successfully faced many occupiers. On the other hand, there is the state, which we can also characterize as a self-sufficient society with all the necessary elements. Therefore, the question arises, do they have a common denominator? Mackovic believes that both structures have weaknesses, and that is that they cannot produce their members on their own. At that point, there is a special interest in the family and a special interest of the church to cooperate with the state.

The eternal dilemma: Individual and/or collective rights

For the last 100 years, the church has been in a disoriented environment, and accustomed to this long-term partnership, it is not able to perceive the state in a different way. The church has so far coped well with authoritarian regimes, because it is easier to maintain the image of an ideal Christianity in a conservative environment. In its efforts to constantly look for a partner, the church gives a picture of right-wing tendencies. Mackovic believes that decision-making in these circles must be improved first, given that they are now in the hands of conservative people. On the other hand, it is necessary to look at today's situation from a realistic point of view, because there are also tendencies towards idealizing democracy.

What I see as a problem is that the church supports conservative groups, and that is precisely because conservatives impose collective rights as opposed to individual ones, and that is where democracy is in trouble. The church must distance itself from this problem, Mackovic pointed out.

(In)compatibility of state and church

Marko Vekovic opened the discussion by asking how the Orthodox churches behaved in the process of democratization and whether all or only some religious systems are politically compatible with democracy. In the literature, we can often read quotations that say that Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are in a positive correlation with democracy, and that this is not the case with Islam, Orthodoxy and Confucianism. These religious systems are believed to be a kind of obstacle to the introduction of democracy.

However, these analyzes cannot be empirically confirmed. When we talk about, say, the relationship between Orthodoxy and democracy, that means taking into account empirical research, because one relationship cannot be researched on a purely theological basis, Vekovic believes.

Also, Vekovic agrees with Mackovic's thesis that the dominant Orthodox countries throughout history have always defended themselves from someone, and that in such conditions, the church and the state were extremely close. Many believe that it is not to be expected that predominantly Orthodox countries will develop stable democratic regimes, both for historical reasons and for specific doctrinal teachings. On the other hand, he also expresses the opinion of Elizabeth Prodromou, who says that Orthodoxy has the potential to accept the idea of democracy, because it insists on the unity and equality of the Holy Trinity, which is a democratic idea.

Religious traditions have the potential to equally accept authoritarian and democratic regimes. The literature teaches us that the condition of any democratic regime is the institutional separation of church and state, but this is another empirical fallacy. What is crucial is the degree of state interference in church matters and vice versa. No religious system is inherently democratic or authoritarian, they have the potential to support both of these systems, Vekovic points out.

He also reminds participants of something called political ambivalence of religious actors. From this point of view, it is important what role institutions play in society. For the question of the attitude of religious actors towards democracy, the attitude of the political idea is crucial, but for the role of religious actors in the processes of democratization, institutions are important. The institutional relationship between the church and the state can vary in intensity and type, Vekovic notes.

Belonging without Believing

Finally, Vekovic shared with the audience interesting research results on questions such as: Is democracy your choice as a form of government, or do you still agree that in some conditions authoritative governments are better? Should churches be funded by the state? Should the state promote religious views?

The main findings of the research show that there is an increase in religiosity after the fall of communism, as well as that there is a strong correlation between religion and national identity. Also, lately, low ecclesiology has been noticed, that is, people feel belonging to a religious community, but the belief is at an extremely low level- Belonging without Believing.

The next, and at the same time the last PolitiKAS debate on the topic Report of the European Commission: What is the plan for the Western Balkans, will be held on Tuesday, November 24, starting at 5:30 p.m. All information about the previous PolitiKAS debates can be found here.