Is it possible for an openly anticolonialist theocratic ideology to emerge as the basis of a war of national liberation, akin to the role that communism and authoritarian one-party socialisms played IOTL wars of national liberation? IOTL most anticolonialists were firmly antireligious or at least of the equal-tolerance school of secularism, and a religious-anticolonial ideology of the "No Ruler but God" variety woud have to rely on a dominant religion with only geographically concentrated religious minorities.
Theocratic AntiColonial Ideology
- Thread starter Beatriz
- Start date
Yes.
In fact, prior to the cold war, there were quite a few religious minded independence movements.
However, such movements were from Muslims. It is rather self explanatory, the Islamic faith preaches of a caliphate to not only rule and protect Muslims, but to expand the faith as well. In that regards, Muslims being under the rule of Christian colonists... was not the ideal situation of the more religious Muslims. In the OTL, the Algerian FLN depended heavily on Muslim support despite the rulers being secular. One way in which I can see a prominent independence movement/party that is explicitly lead my devout Muslims is if France tries to the hijab in Algeria just before the war, in order to secularize ALgeria. Such a ban is practically unenforceable and would lead to mass Muslim outrage. Inevitably this results in explictily Muslims groups forming that compete with and eventually outshine the FLN. Post independence Algeria could then fall to these groups and become an Islamic republic.
In fact, prior to the cold war, there were quite a few religious minded independence movements.
However, such movements were from Muslims. It is rather self explanatory, the Islamic faith preaches of a caliphate to not only rule and protect Muslims, but to expand the faith as well. In that regards, Muslims being under the rule of Christian colonists... was not the ideal situation of the more religious Muslims. In the OTL, the Algerian FLN depended heavily on Muslim support despite the rulers being secular. One way in which I can see a prominent independence movement/party that is explicitly lead my devout Muslims is if France tries to the hijab in Algeria just before the war, in order to secularize ALgeria. Such a ban is practically unenforceable and would lead to mass Muslim outrage. Inevitably this results in explictily Muslims groups forming that compete with and eventually outshine the FLN. Post independence Algeria could then fall to these groups and become an Islamic republic.
Many in the 19th Century upwards. The Mahdi-Movement in Sudan, the Moros of the Phillipines against the Spanish, Americans and Japanese, Schamil´s insurrection in Chechnya against Tsarist troops.
On the other hand there is the Catholic Liberation Theology. wich will not count as theocratic I think.
Maybe have a Catholic insurgency like the Cristeros in Mexico or the freedon fighters in Spain against Napoleon. Maybe a radical movement that seeks to establish a theocratic Catholic state against a Protestant Colonial power ? Maybe a clerical Nationalistic Catholic movement in Malta against the British ?
The Boxer Rebellion might fulfill many requirements of Op´s question.
Last edited:
Um what? Authoritarian liberation (national or otherwise) is an oxymoron.
What is the "equal tolerance school of secularism"? Is that non-theocratic government with religious freedom or is does it have a narrower definition, like atheists who aren't trying to stop people from worshipping? At any rate there were definitely plenty of anti-colonialists who were not anti-religious, from the overwhelmingly Christian Irish republicans to Mohandas Gandhi to the mostly Orthodox Christian Greeks revolting against the Ottomans.
"No ruler but God" could be applied to Christians revolting against monarchs, rejecting the divine right of kings. I agree that it could be a rallying cry for a theocratic movement, although it wouldn't necessarily be limited to theocracy or anti-colonial sentiments.
Getting back to the original question, maybe Hindu nationalism could play a bigger role in the Indian independence movement.
I saw this and thought of a different type of anti-colonial movement.... What about a movement from within the colonizing powers opposing colonialism? A thought would be the British Israelist movement that taught that the British were God's chosen people. Perhaps they would advocate British isolationism to "protect God's people" from outside influence....
Maybe with delayed Decolonization radical Hindu and Sikh movements on the Indian Subconinent that not only act on Nationalism but also on Religion as a base of government with the goal of oppression of religious minority groups ?
What if there had been a religious insurgent IRA like group that swears loyalty to the Pope and proposes a Catholic government for Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland alike ? A group that is fully devouted to the Catholic Church and Catholic liturgy explicitly rejecting secularism as form of government.
Maybe a British occupied Tibet with a religous struggle lead by Lamas.
A continued colonization of Ethiopia by Italians
leads to a holy war of Oriental-Orthodox Church inspired Amhara rebels against the Italians.
What if there had been a religious insurgent IRA like group that swears loyalty to the Pope and proposes a Catholic government for Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland alike ? A group that is fully devouted to the Catholic Church and Catholic liturgy explicitly rejecting secularism as form of government.
Maybe a British occupied Tibet with a religous struggle lead by Lamas.
A continued colonization of Ethiopia by Italians
leads to a holy war of Oriental-Orthodox Church inspired Amhara rebels against the Italians.
Last edited:
In Africa, senior figures of the old religion often played an important role in the anti-colonial struggle.
In Zimbabwe, the masvikiro (mediums) Nehanda Nyakasikana and Kaguvi Gumboreshumba are the obvious examples, leaders of the 1896 anti-colonial struggle. However, masvikiro also played an important role in the 1970s war against Rhodesia, including in recruitment, even leadership in some areas in the early years. This changed to a role similar to European chaplains as the war continued, but did not translate into establishment status for the traditional religion at independence. Indeed, the old religion was tolerated after independence, but with no status, and svikiro or naangas (traditional healers) were hardly ever given role or platform at state events.
I think there's 2 reasons for this: firstly, the increasing support from priests, especially at mission stations, for the struggle, together with less confrontational opposition to the Rhodesian regime from prominent Christian leaders such as Bishop "Red" Ken Skelton, meant that the war wasn't seem as a struggle between different religions at all.
Secondly, the negotiated settlement meant that Mugabe’s government inherited the semi-established status of the Anglican church.
To have an outcome with the traditional religion as the establishment religion of the independent state, you would need either a colonial state with little penetration of Christianity, or one where the established colonial church actively glorified colonialism. The lived experience of too many (white, European) priests generally mitigated against that, crucially at mission stations where priests were mainly in contact with black Africans only - as did the growing numbers of black African clergy in most denominations in most colonies
In Zimbabwe, the masvikiro (mediums) Nehanda Nyakasikana and Kaguvi Gumboreshumba are the obvious examples, leaders of the 1896 anti-colonial struggle. However, masvikiro also played an important role in the 1970s war against Rhodesia, including in recruitment, even leadership in some areas in the early years. This changed to a role similar to European chaplains as the war continued, but did not translate into establishment status for the traditional religion at independence. Indeed, the old religion was tolerated after independence, but with no status, and svikiro or naangas (traditional healers) were hardly ever given role or platform at state events.
I think there's 2 reasons for this: firstly, the increasing support from priests, especially at mission stations, for the struggle, together with less confrontational opposition to the Rhodesian regime from prominent Christian leaders such as Bishop "Red" Ken Skelton, meant that the war wasn't seem as a struggle between different religions at all.
Secondly, the negotiated settlement meant that Mugabe’s government inherited the semi-established status of the Anglican church.
To have an outcome with the traditional religion as the establishment religion of the independent state, you would need either a colonial state with little penetration of Christianity, or one where the established colonial church actively glorified colonialism. The lived experience of too many (white, European) priests generally mitigated against that, crucially at mission stations where priests were mainly in contact with black Africans only - as did the growing numbers of black African clergy in most denominations in most colonies