The research design

Ever since Samuel P. Huntington published his famous works The Third Wave (1991) and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), the discussion of the role of religion as a determinant of democracy has erupted. In The Third Wave, Huntington noted that religion played a crucial role as a determinant of the spread of democracy during the ‘third wave of democratization’, i.e. the process of democratization that started in 1974 with the fall of the Estado Novo regime in Portugal. In comparison with the two earlier waves of democratization (the first one occurred between 1828 and 1926 and the second one between 1943 and 1962), he discovered an important change regarding the relation between religion and democracy. During the two earlier waves (and particularly during the first one), democratization was strongly related to Protestantism, whereas an overwhelming majority of the countries that democratized during the third wave were Catholic (Huntington 1991: 72-85). Along with socioeconomic development, Christianity (with the important exception of Orthodox Christianity) had now emerged as a powerful requisite of a democratic form of government and Huntington (1991: 85) accordingly proclaimed that ‘[t]he logo of the third wave could well be a crucifix superimposed on a dollar sign’. Huntington’s argument was further developed in his The Clash of Civiliza-

tions and the Remaking of the World Order (1996), where his main concern was on interactions between different types of civilizations, of which he identified seven: Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, and Latin American. In addition, a separate African civilization could ‘possibly’ be detected (Huntington 1996: 40-48). Although his main focus was on

civilizations, not religions, Huntington (1996: 47) still regarded religion as ‘a central defining characteristic of civilizations’ and there was indeed a strong linkage between his seven types of civilizations and the world religions, since each of the five major religions was associated with specific civilizations. The only exception was Buddhism, which never laid the basis for a distinct civilization (Huntington 1996: 47-48). In a nutshell, Huntington paints a gloomy picture of the future and reaches

the conclusion that democracy has already reached its natural boundaries. His main argument is that Western Christianity is conducive for democracy, whereas the opposite is true for Orthodox Christianity, Confucianism and Islam. It should nevertheless be emphasized that Huntington’s world view is not totally deterministic. Although he finds that ‘Islamic and Confucian cultures [conceivably] pose insuperable obstacles to democratic development’ he also admits that ‘[s]everal reasons exist … to question the severity of these obstacles’ (Huntington 1991: 310). Following the publication of Huntington’s above mentioned monographs, a

number of works where religion is related to democracy have been put forward. In his Arguing Comparative Politics, one of Huntington’s foremost challengers, Alfred Stepan, rejects Huntington’s assertion that democracy cannot take root in countries situated outside the boundaries of Western civilization. According to Stepan, the central teachings of the world religions (he restricts himself to Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, and Confucianism) do not contain elements that unequivocally conflict with a democratic form of government. Concerning the much debated issue of the compatibility of Islam with democracy for instance, Stepan (2001: 236) notes that ‘contemporary Islamic leaders have “usable” elements to draw from in their doctrine, culture, and experience with which to construct a nondemocratic vision of a desired future polis’ but goes on by adding that ‘there are also other contemporary leaders who have “usable” elements of Islamic doctrine, culture, and experience with which to attempt to support, or construct, a democratic vision of their desired future polis’ (Stepan 2001: 236). Stepan suggests that what is crucial for the prospects of democracy is the establishment of the ‘twin tolerations’. This concept denotes, on the one hand, that there is a clear line separating the political authorities and the religious leaders, and, on the other hand, that the relation between the political and the religious leadership is characterized by mutual respect. Stepan is by no means the only one who has challenged Huntington’s world

view; particularly after the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, authors have given due consideration to the compatibility of Islam with democracy. In their most extreme forms, these contributions bear many similarities to pamphlets. Like lawyers, scholars argue their case, i.e. they either defend the compatibility of Islam with democracy or claim the opposite; that Islam and democracy do not mix (Whitehead 2002: 170). In the heated climate following the terrorist attack on USA and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is perhaps understandable but it is no doubt

surprising to learn that that there is still a scarcity of comprehensive empirical studies where religion is related to democracy without resorting to value judgments. In essence, the ‘big picture’ of the relation between religion and democracy still remains to be painted and the aim of the present monograph is indeed to fill this lacuna in the literature on the requisites of democracy. In the study at hand, the association between religion and democracy will be

approached from a macroperspective as well as from a microperspective. At the macrolevel, religion is regarded as a system-characteristic, which permeates the whole society and also affects the building and functioning of political institutions. Empirically, the first step is to give a bird’s eye view of the association between religion and democracy at the global level. Previous studies have shown that there is a strong negative correlation between Islam and democracy and a strong positive one between Christianity and democracy (e.g. Hadenius 1992; Barro 1999; Anderson 2004; Minkenberg 2007: 893-94). Within the framework of the present study, the main ambition is to study to

what extent bivariate relationships between religion and democracy are altered when analyses are conducted in different points in time and space, when operating with different indicators of religious dominance, and when controlling for the impact of various external factors. The dependent variable, democracy, will be measured with regard to two dimensions. On the one hand, the purpose is to study if and to what extent religion helps to bring about democracy. On the other hand, the ambition is to assess to what extent different religions facilitate the maintenance of a democratic form of government. The relation between religion and democracy can also be apprehended from

a microperspective. It is quite remarkable that until very recently, microlevel studies of the association between religion and democracy were very difficult to come across. Although the number of studies which relate religion to politics at the individual level has increased markedly during the last few years, there are still many questions which remain unanswered regarding the relation between religious affiliation and political values. Within the framework of the present study, the analysis conducted at the system level will therefore be complemented with a comprehensive assessment of the relation between religious affiliation and democratic values at the individual level. This part of the study will primarily be based on the findings of the World Values Survey although data from other surveys will be used as well.