In an article published this month in Democratic Theory, Dr Tobias Müller challenges a familiar assumption in public debate: that the state can act as a neutral arbiter when dealing with religion in democratic life.
Political theorist Müller argues that decisions affecting faith communities are rarely guided by a single, coherent logic. Instead, they are shaped by multiple, sometimes conflicting “state projects”—notably those concerned with security, national identity, and diversity. These projects operate through different bureaucratic priorities, legal frameworks, and cultural assumptions, often pulling policymakers and faith communities in opposing directions.
Drawing on fieldwork in the UK and Germany, the research demonstrates how this fragmentation of state action can have profound consequences for democratic participation and religious life—sometimes undermining inclusion in the very name of neutrality, equality, or security.
Beyond the myth of state neutrality
Liberal democratic theory often treats the state as a neutral referee between competing religious claims. Müller’s research challenges this view head‑on. Rather than standing outside society, the state is shown to be deeply embedded in cultural, racialised, and historical relationships—including those shaped by religion itself.
The article introduces the concept of “state projects” to describe how different parts of the state “see” society through distinct lenses or “grids of legibility”. What becomes visible, measurable, or problematic depends on which project is dominant: Is religion being interpreted as a security risk? As a marker of belonging or loyalty? As one form of diversity among many?
Crucially, these projects do not operate in isolation. Their overlap creates contradictory demands that are often experienced most sharply by religious minorities.
Sanitising politics in the name of equality
One case study focuses on the London Borough of Brent, a highly religiously and ethnically diverse area. Faced with budget pressures and legal uncertainty, the council decided to withdraw funding from all religious festivals.
The decision was framed as fair and inclusive—avoiding accusations of favouritism and ensuring compliance with equality legislation. Yet Müller’s analysis suggests that this approach had unintended democratic consequences. By relying on an abstract, secular definition of equality, the council rendered local religious life politically illegible.
Faith‑based festivals had long functioned as civic events, sites of encounter, and expressions of belonging. Their removal from public support signalled a shift: religion was no longer recognised as a legitimate part of local democratic negotiation, but as a contamination of politics to be removed in the name of neutrality.
This process, which Müller calls “sanitising politics,” shows how inclusion can paradoxically shrink when equality is interpreted as non‑recognition.
Fracturing the demos through security and identity
A second case study from Munich traces the failure of a high‑profile mosque project that had broad interfaith and political backing. Despite being promoted as an exemplary, constitutionally aligned Muslim institution, the project was derailed through years of surveillance, suspicion, and informal administrative obstacles.
Here, contradictory state projects came sharply into view. On the one hand, Muslim leaders were encouraged to act as representatives of a “good” or “moderate” Islam aligned with national values. On the other, security agencies treated the same institutions as latent threats, subjecting them to scrutiny that ultimately undermined their legitimacy and capacity to act.
The result was a “fracturing of the demos”: membership in the political community became conditional, unstable, and reversible. Even highly engaged, legally recognised, and theologically mainstream Muslim actors found their participation curtailed through mechanisms that rarely reach courts or public debate. Müller relates the affecting case of Yesmine, a state schoolteacher and public speaker who was instructed to stop attending her mosque or lose her job.
Why this matters
For academics, Müller’s focus on “state projects” offers a new way into analysing relations between democracy and religion. The article offers a compelling case for “taking seriously how local bureaucrats and municipal representatives interpret and challenge abstract accounts of secularism and religious politics at the national level”.
Yet, this article deserves attention from outside academia too, as policymakers and faith communities seek the betterment of society. Grounded in specific local contexts, the findings resonate strongly with wider debates about faith, cohesion, and public life.
On the basis of this article, policymakers should think hard about:
- how equality legislation is interpreted in practice,
- how security frameworks reshape civic participation,
- and how faith communities are positioned as both partners and problems.
Meanwhile faith organisations should find the concept of “state projects” valuable as a means to track and visibilise what exactly is in play in different arenas. As many will know through lived experience, engagement strategies built solely on narratives of moderation or compliance are risky. Recognition can be withdrawn just as easily as it is granted, especially when different state projects operate with conflicting priorities. For those who seek to foster better engagement, Müller’s case studies are a reminder of the value of coalitions and cross-faith alliances, as well as encouragement to advocate for faith as a legitimate source of public reasoning, not merely private belief.
Engaging the conversation
Related themes will be explored at the upcoming critical discussion of Protecting What Matters, 19 May, an inter-religious research seminar special led by Prof Esra Özyürek.
The full article is published as Tobias Müller, “Democracy and religion in what state? State projects, sanitizing politics, and fracturing the demos”. It is part of a special issue of Democratic Theory, and can be ready online (open access) courtesy of publishers Cambridge University Press.
If you would like a policy briefing based on Müller’s article, please write to hub@interfaith.cam.ac.uk.