Legitimacy and De-Coincidence: What May Democracy Rightfully Expect From Theology?

Légitimité et dé-coïncidence : ce que la démocratie est en droit d’attendre de la théologie?

Authors

  • Bernard Bourdin Institut catholique de Paris, France

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15575/jw.v11i1.58430

Keywords:

conscience, de-coincidence, democracy, legitimacy, theology of the politic

Abstract

Legitimacy is a modern concept that was unknown in the same form to ancient and medieval political thought. It gained prominence in debates over royal legitimacy during the wars of religion and reappeared in nineteenth-century dynastic legitimism. This history has led legitimacy to be treated either as a heteronomous foundation opposed to modern political autonomy or as a loose term for contesting legally constituted power. This critical-philosophical essay reformulates legitimacy through François Jullien’s concept of dé-coïncidence (de-coincidence). Through conceptual reconstruction and a genealogical reading of the relationship between religion, theology, law and politics, it distinguishes political religion which fuses the religious and the political from a theology of the political, which sustains a critical distance between them. The discussion shows that democracy cannot be reduced to legality, whilst legitimacy must not become a religious norm placed above the law. Legitimacy should operate as de-coincidence, ‘fissuring’ the tendency of law, social norms, conscience and religious normativity to close in upon themselves. Theology thereby gains public credibility not as a rival source of sovereignty but as a critical rationality connecting the primacy of conscience with society’s capacity for collective self-determination. The essay’s originality lies in arguing that democratic autonomy can be sustained only through the non-possession of power: power must be exercised and decisions must be made, yet power cannot be owned absolutely by the state, the majority, the individual or religion.

References

Agamben, G. (2017). Le mystère du mal: Benoît XVI et la fin des temps. Montrouge: Bayard.

Arfi, B. (2015). Habermas and the aporia of translating religion in democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(4), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431014562703

Augusteijn, J., Dassen, P., & Janse, M. (Eds.). (2013). Political Religion beyond Totalitarianism: The Sacralization of Politics in the Age of Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdin, B. (2010). Le christianisme et la question du théologico-politique. Paris: Cerf.

Bourdin, B. (2015). Le théologico-politique est-il une imposture? Réponse à Géraldine Mühlmann. Revue Des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 99(4), 709–728. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rspt.1071.0157

Bourdin, B. (2023). Le chrétien peut-il aussi être citoyen? Pour une démocratie de la dé-coïncidence. Paris: Cerf.

Bourdin, B. (2024). Légitimité et dé-coïncidence: Ce que la démocratie est en droit d’attendre de la théologie. Revue Théologique de Louvain, 55(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.2143/RTL.55.3.3293767

de Coulanges, N. D. (1984). La cité antique. Bussières: Flammarion.

Fox, J., & Breslawski, J. (2023). State support for religion and government legitimacy in Christian-majority countries. American Political Science Review, 117(4), 1395–1409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001320

Fulton, B. R., & Wood, R. L. (2018). Civil society organizations and the enduring role of religion in promoting democratic engagement. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(February), 1068–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9965-2

Jullien, F. (2016). Il n’y a pas d’identité culturelle. Paris: L’Herne.

Jullien, F. (2018). Ressources du christianisme. Paris: L’Herne.

Jullien, F. (2020). Rouvrir des possibles: Dé-coïncidence, un art d’opérer. Paris: Éditions de l’Observatoire.

Jullien, F. (2022). Moïse ou la Chine: Quand ne se déploie pas l’idée de Dieu. Paris: Éditions de l’Observatoire.

Locke, J. (1992). Lettre sur la tolérance et autres textes. Bussières: Flammarion.

May, S., Wilson, E. K., Baumgart-Ochse, C., & Sheikh, F. (2014). The religious as political and the political as religious: Globalisation, post-secularism and the shifting boundaries of the sacred. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 15(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2014.948526

Menchik, J. (2017). The constructivist approach to religion and world politics. Comparative Politics, 49(4), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041517821273035

Mühlmann, G. (2022). L’imposture du théologico-politique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Schmitt, C. (1992). La notion de politique; Théorie du partisan. Bussières: Flammarion.

Schmitt, C. (2011). La visibilité de l’Église; Catholicisme romain et forme politique; Donoso Cortés. Paris: Cerf.

Spinoza, B. (1999). Œuvres II: Traité théologico-politique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Vanden Auweele, D. (2022). Liberal democracy needs religion: Kant on the ethical community. Kantian Review, 27(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415421000728

Vatter, M. (2024). The legitimacy of political theology: Reply to my critics. Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 26(2), 325–348. Retrieved from https://sites.units.it/etica/2024_2/VATTER.pdf

Vidal, T. M. (2018). Civil religion reconsidered: The saliency of a venerable concept. Perspectives on Political Science, 47(2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2015.1130552

Voegelin, E. (1994). Les religions politiques. Paris: Cerf.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-25

How to Cite

Bourdin, B. (2026). Legitimacy and De-Coincidence: What May Democracy Rightfully Expect From Theology? Légitimité et dé-coïncidence : ce que la démocratie est en droit d’attendre de la théologie?. Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama Dan Sosial Budaya, 11(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.15575/jw.v11i1.58430

Issue

Section

Articles

Citation Check