Religious Soft Power as Accountability Mechanism for Power in World Politics

Sherrie Steiner

doi:10.1177/2158244011428085

Abstract

This case study of the InterFaith Leaders’ Summit(s) from 2005 to 2010 expands the concept of “soft power” as an accountability mechanism to include religious soft power. This article explores the theoretical validity of a Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism (FAM) as a macro-level explanatory unit. The interfaith leaders exercise public reputational and peer accountability among their constituents in relation to the G8/G20 leaders. The theoretical validity of the dialogue process is not contingent on political leader responsiveness but is ascertained using a complex theoretical standard for assessing the legitimacy of global governance institutions against which observations are then gauged. The InterFaith Dialogue Mechanism is a specific illustration of a FAM that shows increasing compliance with the complex standard between 2005 and 2010. The Dialogue Mechanism FAM is a form of religious soft power that combines soft institution with soft technique. The next stage in the research is to identify specific characteristics of the FAM ideal type.

Highlights

A renewed interest in religion and international relations has primarily focused on transnational religious actors as either threats to or reinforcers of the global system (Banchoff, 2008; Falk, 2001; Fox & Sandler, 2004; Haynes, 2007; Johnston, 2003; Petito & Hatzopoulos, 2003; Shani, 2009; Thomas, 2005)
The recent increase of soft power influence in international relations stems as much from the political vulnerabilities of the situation as it does from the increased political activities of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs)
Because the hegemonic nation states are characterized by democratic norms, there is an expectation among people throughout the world that global governance be characterized by democratic norms

Summary

Introduction

A renewed interest in religion and international relations has primarily focused on transnational religious actors as either threats to or reinforcers of the global system (Banchoff, 2008; Falk, 2001; Fox & Sandler, 2004; Haynes, 2007; Johnston, 2003; Petito & Hatzopoulos, 2003; Shani, 2009; Thomas, 2005). The growing body of global regulatory governance mechanisms has been described by Kingsbury and Stewart (2008) as a spontaneously evolving, untidy regulatory mass without center or hierarchy that is largely administrative in character, reaching decisions by reference to sources as staff employment contracts, staff rules and regulations, and internal orders. While this curb on the exercise of public power promotes more orderly patterns of globalization, the highly fragmented, horizontally organized regimes function with considerable autonomy, outstripping any global governmental ability to control and legitimate regulatory decisions (Kingsbury & Stewart, 2008; Wallach, 2002). Are we going to design and build circumstances that enlarge possibilities for growth in human freedom, sociability, intelligence, creativity, and self-government? Or are we headed in an altogether different direction? (Winner, 1986, p. 17)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion