Panel discussion summary

Moncef Marzouki, the former President of Tunisia, began the discussion on secularism by presenting his perspective as a democrat and human rights activist. He highlighted the dual nature of dictatorships in the Arab and Islamic world, emphasizing the existence of both religious and secular dictatorships. Marzouki pointed out the harshness of religious dictatorships, where power is legitimized through religion, and laws are rooted in religious beliefs such as Sharia. However, he also underscored the presence of secularist dictatorships, exemplified by cases like Egypt, Algeria, and Tunisia.

 Drawing on his experience during the Arab Spring, Marzouki revealed the complexity within secularism and Islamism, noting that both encompass a wide spectrum of ideologies. He cautioned against viewing these movements as homogenous and urged a focus on the broader division between democrats and anti-democrats. Marzouki shared his firsthand experience leading a government in Tunisia where secularists and Islamists collaborated, facing challenges from both Islamist terrorism and opposition from some secularists. He emphasized the need to move beyond the dichotomy of secularists as good and Islamists as bad, advocating for a more nuanced understanding.

Moncef Marzouki challenged the simplistic dichotomy of labeling all Islamists as inherently bad and secularists as inherently good. Drawing from his experiences in Tunisia and the broader Arab world, he highlighted the diversity within both ideological spectrums. Marzouki acknowledged the existence of Islamists who embraced democracy, indicating a broad spectrum within the Islamist movement. He criticized the tendency to stereotype Islamists as universally dangerous, pointing out the complexity of the political landscape. Conversely, he cautioned against assuming that all secularists inherently champion democracy, recounting instances where some secularists supported dictatorships in fear of Islamist influence. Marzouki's key argument centered on transcending ideological labels and focusing on the democratic values shared by individuals across the spectrum, emphasizing that the true divide lies between those who support democracy and those who oppose it, irrespective of their ideological affiliations. This nuanced perspective underscored his call for a more sophisticated understanding of political dynamics and a rejection of sweeping generalizations.

Marieme Helie Lucas, a sociologist and women's rights activist, joined the discussion, delving into the historical context of secularism, particularly the French concept of laïcité. She emphasized that secularism emerged in response to the Catholic Church's influence during the French Revolution in 1789. Lucas argued that the true essence of secularism, as seen in France, is the separation between church and state, guaranteeing individual freedoms while not recognizing any specific religion. She critiqued the shift in the definition of secularism in certain countries, such as the UK, where it became more about equal treatment of religions by the state, potentially fostering communalism over citizenship.

Marieme highlighted the importance of distinguishing between secularism as separation and secularism as neutrality, asserting that the latter model risks prioritizing cultural and religious rights over women's rights in a hierarchical manner. She brought attention to the global variation in understanding secularism, shaped by colonial legacies, and challenged the prevailing vocabulary that often stereotypes Muslims. Marieme discussed the challenges faced by progressive groups advocating for secularism, especially in Muslim-majority countries, and stressed the need to uphold women's rights within the framework of secular laws.  

Marieme Helie Lucas distinguished between secularism and laïcité, elucidating their nuanced differences. She traced secularism's roots to the French Revolution, aimed at curbing the Catholic Church's political influence. The 1905 law formalized laïcité, emphasizing the separation of church and state. Lucas contrasted the French laïcité with the British secularism model, underscoring the former's clear state-religion divide. She highlighted the global influence of these concepts, rooted in colonial legacies. Emphasizing laïcité's principle of equal citizenship, she critiqued community-based rights, particularly within Muslim contexts. Lucas criticized Sharia courts in the UK for compromising women's rights, stressing the importance of individual freedoms over identity politics. Her speech provided a thorough exploration of historical, legal, and societal dimensions, focusing on principles of equality and individual rights.


 In response, Moncef Marzouki added his perspective, reiterating the political nature of the secularism debate. He observed that ideologies like secularism and laïcité are often manipulated for political gain and can lead to intolerance, with some secularists becoming as intolerant as Islamists. Marzouki warned against the dangerous trap of identity politics, urging a focus on the fundamental principles of democracy, human rights, and tolerance.

Marieme Helie Lucas concluded by emphasizing that giving up on laïcité is neither progressive nor favorable to human rights. She criticized identity politics that pit communities against each other, advocating for the preservation of secularism as separation to avoid political strife within nations.

 In summary, the discussion provided a comprehensive exploration of secularism, touching on its historical roots, political implications, and the need for a nuanced understanding beyond simplistic dichotomies. The speakers urged a focus on democratic values and human rights while cautioning against the pitfalls of identity politics in the context of secularism.