Rüdiger Korff

Religionisation of Politics in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar

Until quite recently, religion was considered a negligible variable both in violent conflict and politics. At most, it was perceived as an ideological pretext hiding other, economic or political causes for conflict, in which religion was merely instrumentalised by the powerful. This view has changed decisively over the last two decades. In many political and conflict situations ‘Religion’ is now implicitly or explicitly considered as a self-explanatory factor that cannot be questioned further. The article questions these assumptions: religion can never count as the only or the self-explanatory factor underlying any (violent) conflict situation. Yet, it cannot be perceived as merely an ideological means to be instrumentalised for their own purposes by ruling elites either. While this top-down perception does apply in many cases and is captured by the term ‘politicisation of religion’, bottom-up processes can and do intervene to bring about the reverse effect: the religionisation of politics. We illustrate this with empirical examples taken from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand. Instead of religion being used to realise political objectives, politics becomes an instrument of implementing religious practice. These are not exclusionary processes, they influence each other and create their own dynamics, leading to the exclusion of the ‘Other’ and from there frequently to violence.

War's dark glamour: ethics of research in war and conflict zones

The article addresses three questions concerning violent conflicts in Sri Lanka, Burma and southern Thailand: How is it possible to investigate questions of war and conflict in the field, especially concerning access and exit options? Access was gained in different ways in all three areas depending on the respective situations; special conditions and restrictions influenced the type and quality of data to be collected. The second question concerns the ethics and permissibility of research and data collection in conflict zones. What are the dangers or risks for both researcher and the local informants? What will be the quality of data so gathered? Third is a related question of ethics, that of impartiality: this is less a question of whether it is possible than of whether it is permissible for the researcher to stay ‘neutral’ in violent conflicts. This also has to be determined individually and in a different manner for each conflict zone. It is obvious that all researchers violate the ideal of ‘objectivity’ implicitly or explicitly from the start, yet this need not invalidate their findings. The paper concludes that research in conflict zones is mandatory, despite all doubts and qualifications. Only making such zones public can shape perceptions, give voice to the voiceless and so prevent these conflicts becoming invisible—‘war without witness’.