Confounding the expectations of secularists, religion has a strong – perhaps growing – significance as a key source of identity for millions of people, especially in the developing world. In recent years, religion has made a muted but tangible impact in Western development circles, most commonly reflecting the view that religious hatreds and differences are central to many recent and current conflicts in the developing world. This paper argues that religion can both encourage conflict and build peace, reflecting growing evidence that religious forces can play a constructive role in helping to resolve conflicts. Religious individuals and faith-based organisations, as carriers of religious ideas, can play important roles, not only as a source of conflict but also as a tool for conflict resolution and peace-building, providing early warnings of conflict, good offices once conflict has erupted, and contributing to advocacy, mediation and reconciliation. Brief case studies of religious peacemakers – from Mozambique, Nigeria and Cambodia – demonstrate attempts, characteristically partially successful, to reconcile previously warring communities, thereby helping to achieve greater social cohesion, and providing a crucial foundation for progress in enhancing human development.

The aim of this paper is to examine comparatively the growth and political effectiveness of right-wing populism in Western Europe, Central Europe, and the USA since 9/11. The focus is on such politicians’ vilification of Islam as a faith and Muslims as a people. The paper examines the following research question: how and why do right-wing populists in the USA and Europe use an ideological form of “Christianity”, known variously as “Christianism” or “Christian civilizationism”, to vilify Muslims and Islam? The political purpose seems obvious: to influence public perceptions and to win votes by questioning the desirability of Muslims in both the USA and Europe, claiming that Muslims’ religious and cultural attributes make them unacceptable as neighbors. As Muslims are not capable, so the argument goes, of assimilating to European or American norms, values, and behavior, then they must be excluded or strongly controlled for the benefit of nativist communities. Right-wing populists in both the USA and Europe pursue this strategy because they see it as chiming well with public opinion at a time of great uncertainty, instability, and insecurity.

Anti-Muslim feeling in the USA reflects not only long-standing antipathy linked to the events of 11 September 2001 but also reveals the success of an ideologically-focused political argument, one that has deliberately exaggerated the extent of values-based incompatibility between all Muslims and all “Westerners.” This was exhibited by Donald Trump and other leading Republicans in the 2016 presidential campaign, who sought to highlight the perceived virtues of American “Judeo-Christianity” while implicitly or explicitly denigrating the values and ethics of Muslims, both in America and around the world. The article examines the Trump administration's policy regarding America's claimed “Judeo-Christian values” and differences with those of Muslim-majority societies.

This paper examines the relative political significance of domestic and transnational Islamic militancy in three East African countries: Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. It seeks to identify, describe and account for the sources and significance of such militancy, with a focus upon the significance of al-Qaeda and regional affiliates. The paper argues that, encouraged by the post-9/11 international fall out, regional Islamic networks work towards improving the perceived low political and economic status of Muslims in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. At present, however, the political significance of Islamic militancy in the three countries is low.

What is the explanatory value of the “clash of civilizations” paradigm, popularized by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s? How has Huntington’s argument fared in the perceptions of scholars and policy makers, the two audiences on which he focused? In the three decades since Huntington first aired his controversial framework, inter-civilizational “clash” and “dialogue” have become mainstream issues in both international relations and in many countries’ domestic concerns. The article focuses on the explanatory value of Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” paradigm in relation to recent political successes of right-wing populists in the USA and Europe.

This study examines the relative political significance of domestic and transnational Islamic militancy in three East African countries: Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. It seeks to identify, describe and account for the sources and significance of such militancy and to relate how it impacts upon democratization outcomes. The analysis reaches three conclusions: first, encouraged by the post-9/11 international fall-out, regional Islamic networks are working towards improving the perceived low political and economic status of Muslims in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda; second, the political significance of Islamic militancy in the three countries is relatively low; and third, various Islamic initiatives are important in the pursuit of more democratic polities.