The confluence of religion and politics is almost always controversial - the varying conflicts that arise from people of different religions (and even different sects of the same religion) can make tackling issues of public policy or business extremely difficult. With that said, there may be some merit to pursuing faith through diplomacy in a governmental context. However, it has a much more useful place in private organizations, which can more actively work in the best interests of a limited number of members, all of whom share the same religion. These issues and more will be explored through Madeleine Albright's essay "Faith and Diplomacy."
The biggest challenge that stems from any political interaction, whether by government or private organization, is attempting to understand the other side of the argument. However, one aspect of culture that is universal, if not by type than by presence, is religion - "Religion is a powerful force, but its impact depends entirely on what it inspires people to do" (p. 24). Even in the case of different religions, it is possible for people to have similar goals - living in peace, interacting freely with one another, etc. Even with faith-based diplomacy in dealing with a government or entity of a different religion, there is still the appeal to reason that can be used to find real progress.
The government can often find tremendous value in using religion in politics - finding common ground is important, as previously mentioned, and "faith-based diplomacy can be a useful tool of foreign policy" (p. 31). When interacting with other countries, especially ones with a large religious following or impact in their politics, it often makes sense to interact on that basis. However, as Albright argues, it should not "replace traditional diplomacy" (p. 31). There should still be secular, reasoned, logical reasons for doing the things that governments do, independent of religion. This is especially true when the nations being governed do not subscribe to a single (or even majority) religion; if faith-based diplomacy were taken to its furthest extreme, that would betray those being governed who do not share the faith.
The greatest positive to using religion and faith in diplomacy is the potential for the aforementioned common ground to unite differing nations: "Religion at its best can reinforce the core values necessary for people from different cultures to live in some degree of harmony; we should make the most of that possibility" (p. 31). However, there is also the tremendous risk of faith-based diplomacy bringing nations to war against each other, as the worst case scenarios of faith-based diplomacy can often lead to violent conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army seeks "to overthrow the Ugandan government and replace it," based on religious conflict (p. 27). By bringing these differing views of Christianity into the discussion of politics, these two groups are now in conflict. Then again, this is one of the risks in dealing with clashing views of the same faith - "It is often simpler to deal with people of completely different faiths than with those who share a religion but disagree about how it should be interpreted" (p. 31). With that in mind, the risk is far too great to allow faith-based diplomacy a large role in governmental policy.
Private organizations, on the other hand, may have the ability to simply not associate with other companies or organizations that do not share their same religious beliefs. This is in tune with the Institute for Global Engagement - 'The institute's mantra is, 'Know your faith at its deepest and richest best, and enough about your neighbor's faith to respect it.'" (p. 30). Without having to tie itself to the political whims of national governments, private organizations may well have the independence and the clout to operate as representative of their own interests. Furthermore, private organizations are not often militarized, and do not have the resources of a national war machine to potentially use to settle disputes. With that said, the stakes are often lower for faith-based private organizations, and violent conflict would either be avoided or be much easier to facilitate.
In conclusion, faith-based diplomacy can work in both governments and private organizations to an extent, but there are some risks to this process. In the case of governments, the potential is too great for religious conflicts to arise between militarized nations for it to be an absolute policy, though finding common ground through religion is helpful. However, private organizations can use faith-based diplomacy to more effectively represent the whole of their membership, and the smaller scale and lack of militarization can mean minimal reprisals should said diplomacy not go as intended.
Works Cited
Albright, Madeleine. "Faith and Diplomacy." in Emerging. Barrios, Barclay, ed. Bedford/St.
Martins, 2010. Print.
