Sectarianism is as powerful a political word as you can conjure up. Evoking images of violence, anger, and inimical hatred many of us associate sectarianism as an orientalist image where we see the Middle East as a medieval picture of religious division. However, increasingly we are using sectarianism to define what we see in our politics and on our streets. For some, sectarianism is all around us rather than far away. 

Fascism may be no.1 when describing extreme political events but sectarianism  today is a close second. Used to describe dysfunctional political systems and society, sectarianism on the face of it is rightly in vogue. At a time when communities are fracturing across the Western World it seems appropriate to use such extreme language. Extreme it is, for sectarianism does not describe mere difference but intense political and social dysfunction where integration is fundamentally blocked. 

Helen Dale a writer, lawyer, and political commentator argues we are in the grip of sectarianism. Dale notes segregated voting patterns, ethno-religious political strife and grievance politics focusing on wars thousands of miles away which almost every MP has no bearing on. Seeing parallels with Northern Ireland, Dale fears not only the division but the potential explosiveness of such politics. She is not the only one, with Nigel Farage and writer Sam Bidwell making similar claims. 

Their claims are not entirely unfounded. The revolting scenes on our streets serve as a stark warning about our potent vulnerabilities as a society surely leading us to the conclusion that when Francis Fukuyama writes about the potency of political identity he is not wrong. Economic stimulation can only take us so far in creating and maintaining a polity. Perhaps identity is the most prominent form of political identification. If so, what does that say about our body politic? 

“Fukuyama was not wrong: the modern world, having arrived at its complete development and conscious that it is bound to die- if only (which is plausible alas) in suicidal violence-no longer has anything to think about but the end of history” (Alan Badiou The Rebirth of History) 

Yet, we must ask ourselves what exactly is sectarianism? None of the articles I listed define what they meant by sectarianism. There was some notion of communal division, political polarisation and nods to fundamental differences but little else. In this sense sectarianism has become little more than a feeling of dislocation where division reigns free and political violence is magnified across identitarian lines. But surely not every identity can be placed in the sectarian pile. 

This is precisely why some scholars, such as Fanar Haddad, have argued the use of sectarianism no longer remains useful at all due to its overuse and abuse. Sectarianism does not simply mean political polarisation it also has an attachment to a religious identity of fundamental importance. This is not to suggest those who are sectarian have a strong understanding of religion merely that it is used as an identifying tool to ‘other’ distinct groups from. From this it would appear for sectarianism to really make sense it has to be confined to religious divisions whether they be intra or inter religious conflicts. 

However, some have attempted to take sectarianism out of the religious box. It has been argued by scholars such as Simon Mabon that sectarianism as a concept can be applied to different areas given the malleability of identity. Just as the temperature of politics is not kept at a constant heat neither are the shape and nature of how we define ourselves. Necessarily this has limitations on what type of identity functions in a similar way to sect. Perhaps tribe and ethnicity are obvious examples where sectarianism could transcend the religious box where it has been placed but they remain few and far between. As I have written previously politics can be perilous regardless of what identities are in play. This does not mean every political friction comes under the rubric of sectarianism unless we want to retire the term from possessing any meaning at all. 

Even if we were to bring sectarianism outside the religious framework it is of little use if we do not analyse how it functions. Are these identity differences fundamental? Are they merely invented by elites or is there some middle ground which we can find. The malleability of identity necessarily disproves the notion of primordialism. If sectarianism was inevitable because of how we felt about others due to ‘ancient hatreds’ then we could never see new ‘sectarian conflicts’ emerge and dampen. What we see in such conflicts are ever changing patterns highlighting the ferocity of sectarian feeling is never consistent. Difference after-all does not necessitate conflict. 

But, neither can sect identity and sectarianism purely be the plaything of political elites. Untethering identity away from the person, individually we become little more than marionettes. This is no more true than Marxists who proclaim ‘false consciousness’ amongst the working class when yet again the proletariat refuse to mobilise for the revolution. Thus, like with many things, a middle ground is the most likely. Our identities and sectarianism emerges only in conjunction of its social construction along with some feeling related to said identity. Hardly inevitable but neither impossible- sectarianism is a complex mixture requiring political mobilisation and inner belief to truly gain any hold. 

The big question is the UK in this grip. The evidence remains pretty shallow focused on individual events and the odd nefarious actor. After-all, we don’t possess institutions which are bound by our sect identity nor generally do our politicians demand votes across such lines. Those who do, such as the noxious George Galloway, are known precisely because they are in the minority not the majority. Britain does not resemble Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq where sectarian politics is rife and elites deliberately play the identity card with such ferocity. 

Institutions and people need to step up to the plate to secure our political and social union

If anything the riots on the streets and the public’s wider condemnation of them highlights how unsectarian our politics are. We have witnessed signs of inter-communal solidarity as mass protests have outnumbered far right gatherings across the country. Far from the country being pulled apart at the seams by race, ethnicity, and religion we are witnessing a wider coming together in mutual defence of common values. This is the very opposite of the balkanization some have talked up in the media and on the campaign trail.  

This is not to say we shouldn’t be complacent. Birmingham police deciding against a police presence at a counter rally justified on the basis of engagement with ‘community leaders’ are precisely the tactics we need to be wary of. Regardless of why groups of people are out in their street, or if they constitute a minority or not, the force of the law needs to be precisely the same. Police and other institutions need to be vigilant in order to avoid the accusation of double standards or of ‘two tiers’ of conduct. 

Institutions should not allow the bigotry of low expectations root communities to old prejudices whether they be homophobia, sexism, or racism. Those who promote and idealise such positions should find themselves socially ostracised rather than entertained. Tommy Robinson is a far right menace who should not be given the time of day but neither should we tolerate lynch mobs targeting vulnerable teenagers for upsetting certain religious values. 

We also need to wary of self-proclaimed community leaders or those who seek to divide and conquer. Not only are such positions ripe for those unsuited for them and we need look no further than community leader mo ansar but such ‘leaders’ can promote false division or just as dangerous false consensus.  We have seen the dangers in the last General Election in Birmingham and Leicester how such thuggery degrades our democratic system. 

Ultimately, I do not believe the UK is sectarianized despite what many proclaim. There is no doubt a danger we could become a disintegrated fabric of intolerance towards one another but we are not there yet. Institutions and people need to step up to the plate to secure our political and social union. If we do not then who knows what lays before us….