Secularism is not limited to the absence of a state religion. Several dozen constitutions around the world mention a principle of separation or religious neutrality, but the actual functioning of these regimes varies to the point of making any definitive counting impossible.
The difficulty lies in a problem of legal categorization: a state can declare itself secular in its constitution while funding religious practices, imposing religious education, or restricting certain practices in the name of public order.
Further reading : Explore the World of Sports: Tips, News, and Guides for Enthusiasts
Constitutional Secularism and Security Regulation: The West African Case
In recent years, we have observed a transformation of the concept of secularism in several West African states. The case of Burkina Faso illustrates a notable shift: a new law on religious freedoms was unanimously adopted by the members of the Transitional Legislative Assembly. The stated goal is to be more rigorous in religious practice within a secular state facing terrorism.
This precedent deserves attention. Secularism is becoming a tool for the security regulation of religions, not just a framework of neutrality. The separation of state and religions no longer solely aims to protect freedom of conscience but to regulate practices deemed destabilizing to national security.
Related reading : How to log in to the Arena Montpellier portal and troubleshoot access issues
This approach diverges from the classic model of separation inherited from the French law of 1905. It raises a technical question that usual classifications do not resolve: does a state that restricts religious practice in the name of secularism remain secular in the liberal sense of the term, or does it shift towards state control of religious matters? Determining how many secular countries exist in the world according to one or the other of these models first requires resolving this criterion.
Formal Separation vs. Effective Neutrality: A Technical Reading Grid
Comparative constitutional law distinguishes at least three configurations that all claim secularism but operate differently.
- Strict Separation: the state does not finance any religion, recognizes no religion, and confines religious expression to the private sphere. France after 1905 is the most cited model, with the law separating churches and the state.
- Cooperative Neutrality: the state does not profess any official religion but collaborates with religious groups (funding of chaplaincies, local concordats, optional religious education). Germany, Belgium, or Switzerland depending on the cantons fall under this scheme.
- Proclaimed Secularism, Ambiguous Practice: the constitution mentions secularism, but family law, the penal code, or the education system incorporate norms of religious origin. Several states in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia fall into this category.
A common pitfall in rankings is to add up all the constitutions mentioning the word “secular” or “secularism” without verifying actual practice. The constitutional mention does not guarantee the real neutrality of the state.
State Churches and Secularized Cultures: The Scandinavian Paradox
Scandinavian countries complicate any attempt at ranking by exemplarity. Denmark, Norway, and Iceland maintain a church linked to the state or a religious institutional heritage. Sweden officially ended state sponsorship of its church in 2000. These four countries guarantee freedom of religion through their constitution.
However, their population shows one of the lowest rates of religious practice in the world. The secularization of society is significantly more advanced than in formally secular states. A country without strict legal separation can be more secular than a constitutionally secular country.
We observe that the presence of a state church has not prevented the adoption of progressive legislation on individual rights. Conversely, some states that declare themselves secular maintain restrictions on freedom of conscience or apostasy.
France and Secular Republics: Specificities of the Separation Model
France remains the historical reference for strict separation between state and religions. The law of 1905 constitutes the legal foundation: the Republic does not recognize, pay, or subsidize any religion. This principle has been reinforced by its inscription in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic.
The French model is distinguished by the prohibition of religious symbols in certain public spaces (schools, public service). This approach has no exact equivalent in other Western democracies, where freedom of religious expression in public space is generally protected.
Other republics have enshrined secularism in their fundamental texts: Mexico, Turkey, India, Portugal, or Brazil. Each applies it according to its political history and relationship with religious institutions. Turkey, for example, has developed a state apparatus for managing religions (the Diyanet) that controls Sunni Islam while declaring itself secular.
Why No Global Ranking of Secularism Achieves Consensus
Three technical obstacles prevent establishing a reliable ranking of the most exemplary secular countries.
The first is the absence of a unified international legal definition. French secularism, Anglo-Saxon secularism, and Latin American laicidad do not cover the same normative realities. Comparing France and India on the same criterion requires methodological adjustments that most rankings do not detail.
The second obstacle concerns the distinction between positive law and practice. A state can display an impeccable constitution and tolerate systemic religious discrimination or fund religions through indirect mechanisms (tax benefits, cultural subsidies).
The third relates to the rapid evolution of national legislations. The trend observed in Burkina Faso, where secularism justifies a reinforced framework for religious practices, modifies the classic mapping. States considered secular ten years ago may today lean towards a model of state control over religion.
Exemplarity thus depends on the criterion chosen: maximum freedom of conscience, neutrality of funding, equal treatment among religions, or absence of any religious reference in civil law. No state ticks all these boxes simultaneously. France fails on Alsace-Moselle and its local concordat, Sweden on its former state church, India on community personal laws.