Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism Typology

Abstract

The conditions associated with the stability of democratic global governance have been a leading concern of political sociology. Globalization, a situation of "governance without government," has accountability gaps that International Nongovernmental Organizations-religious and secular-bridge with activism. They strengthen democratic norms by exercising soft power as accountability mechanisms in international relations. Religious and secular accountability mechanisms differ in structure and function. This article presents a Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism typology that outlines a set of attributes for an exercise of religious soft power that might strengthen the democratic process in global governance. A coalition service model that preserves the public trust in appropriate contexts is developed in contrast to monopolistic religious surveillance models.

Reflexivity in External Religious Leaders’ Summit Communication Sequences (2005-2012) to G8 Political Leaders

“…World religions coming together in dialogue with one another to voice global ethics is historically unprecedented (Armstrong, 2007;Kung, 1991). Religious summitry where leaders of the world religions engage in intentional governance efforts toward serious, consistent and persistent credible conversation with the political leaders of the world is entirely new (Steiner, 2011b(Steiner, , 2012 and in July of 2013, the U.S. State Department created its first office dedicated to outreach to the global faith community and religious leaders (Tenety, 2013). Faith networks are deeply rooted in local communities, strongly represented among the poor and vulnerable, and are among some of the best organized civil institutions in the world (Berger, 2003).…”

“…9-10). The Summits of World Religious Leaders represent an important case study for empirical identification of a governance role, if any, for religions in international relations because of the deliberate, consistent, and persistent governance efforts that have been made from 2005 to 2012 to engage top tier religious and political leaders in dialogue about global risks (Steiner, 2011b(Steiner, , 2012. Religious summitry is diverse, having included representation of all major world religions since 2006.…”

“…Religious summitry is diverse, having included representation of all major world religions since 2006. The religious network, measurement problems notwithstanding, has been estimated to involve a constituency in excess of 800 million that is becoming increasingly politicized over time (Steiner, 2011b(Steiner, , 2012. Empirical investigation into the reflexivity of summitry communicational sequences furthers our understanding of religious governance beyond the selfidentification and public involvement of religious leaders by lending insight into the quality of the communication itself.…”

Reflexive Governance Dynamics Operative Within Round One of World Religious Leaders’ Dialogue With the G8 (2005-2013)

“…World religions coming together in dialogue to voice global ethics is historically unprecedented (Armstrong, 2007; Kung, 1991). Religious summitry where leaders of the world religions engage in serious, consistent, and persistent credible conversation with the political leaders of the world is entirely new (Steiner, 2011, 2012). Although the return of religion to international relations is increasingly recognized (e.g., Banchoff, 2008; Fox & Sandler, 2004; Haynes, 2009; Petito & Hatzopoulos, 2003; Snyder, 2011), a governance role for religion, where it might exist, is still underresearched (e.g., Halafoff, 2013; Johnston, 2003).…”

“…Previous research on the World Religious Leaders’ Summits (Steiner, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, in press) describes how religious leaders reflexively interface with the G8 leaders to negotiate the social (re)construction of norms in light of G8 moral responsibility to the poor and vulnerable of the world. Religious leaders do this by blurring boundaries that hinder international collaboration (Steiner, in press).…”