Current debates on the rise of right-wing parties and objections to liberal politics gave new prominence to terms such as “(right-wing) populism” and the populist radical right. They in one or another way underline the ideologically specific ingredients of far-right mind-sets such as nativism, ultra-nationalism, anti-pluralism and authoritarianism (e.g. Minkenberg 2000, Mudde 2007, Rydgren 2007, Müller 2016). Our contribution to this debate is a nuanced perspective, which through the lens of ambivalences provides a conceptual understanding of “the illiberal” as a dynamic element of democracies and—to address the thematic framework of the book an attribution to religious as well as non-religious actors, their ideas, and strategies. By doing so, it connects to the overarching questions of the volume, why and under which conditions religion can be of relevance for illiberal politics andvice versa.

Theoretical point of departure is the dynamic concept of ambivalence as the meta-condition for similar tendencies in religious and political activities against the liberal consensus of contemporary societies within a democratic system. As Zygmunt Bauman notes, modernity implies non-teleological, contradictory but interrelated processes. “Ambivalence is arguably the modern era’s most genuine worry and concern, since unlike other enemies, defeated and enslaved, it grows in strength with every success of modern powers. It is its own failure that the tidying-up activity construes as ambivalence” (Bauman 1991, 15). Accordingly, the ambivalences of contemporary developments have their roots in modernization, secularization and democratization processes (Beichelt et al. 2019).

Core elements of our conceptual understanding of “the illiberal” through the lens of ambivalence are that democracies similarly consist of liberal and illiberal elements, which need to be kept in balance. However, what we have been facing over the last decade is an increasing overemphasis of illiberal elements for non-democratic purposes. From a sociological point of view, religion, too, entails the potential for liberal and illiberal interpretations legitimizing both, equality and hierarchical authority.5 In addition, the ambivalences of religion in post-secular societies are marked by a decrease of traditional religiosity and an increase of cultural Christianity, with the potential of the latter to become a source for radical-right mobilization (Brubaker 2017).

Moral-political change, moreover, fostered (and fosters) religious polarization and empowered fundamentalist religious actors (Hennig 2018). In sum, we argue that ambivalence is enshrined in processes linked to modernization, such as secularization, globalization, and Europeanization, which on the one hand provide cultural value and political changes feeding the liberal project but on the other hand simultaneously provide for their rejection. In the United States, for instance, moral-political reforms since the mid-1970s became a triggering factor for the rise of the Christian right in the 1980s. Furthermore, the need to deal with immigration from Muslim countries mobilized the radical right and Islamophobia in Europe.

Coming from two slightly different scientific backgrounds, namely empirical social science research and political theory, we elaborate these arguments in more detail by connecting these two fields. In this vein, the chapter combines research from comparative social science and from political theory that in one or another way analyzes the contemporary relevance of religion within the dynamic contestation of (liberal) values, which aim at safeguarding freedom, equality, autonomy and pluralism. Relevant studies emphasizing explicitly the illiberal aspect of the intertwining of religion and politics are showing how religious, or rather: Christian, traditions can turn into a marker for right-wing populist identity construction (Marzouki et al. 2016, Brubaker 2017, Nilsson DeHanas/Shterin 2018). Those studies dealing with morality and anti-gender politics reveal how actors with Christian backgrounds ally themselves with political actors to implement illiberal regulations (such as Hennig 2012, Engeli et al. 2012, Kuhar/Paternotte 2017, Euchner 2019). In recent times, also comparative research on the radical right has put emphasis on religious actors and traditions as allies or sources for right-wing populist actors (e.g. Pytlas 2015, Minkenberg 2018). Liberal theory, instead, has been discussing for more than two decades to what extent any kind of religious arguments in the public sphere is challenging the normative principles, in particular the separation of Church and State or religion and politics, in liberal democracies (e.g. Wolterstorff 1997, Habermas 2003 and 2005a/2005b, Audi 2011, Stepan/Taylor 2014).

The chapter consists of three major sections, which differ in their approaches and aims. The first section takes an empirical-conceptual perspective and introduces the context of ambivalences as a meta-condition for a liberal-illiberal divide within the processes of post-material value change and secularization since the 1970s. The second and central part is theoretical in nature and elaborates from a democracy-theoretical angle our understanding of the “illiberal”. Ambivalence turns here into a meta-theoretical perspective, which helps to identify the liberal and illiberal as two contradictory elements of democracy. The third section is clearly empirical. Using the thus previously defined understanding of the illiberal, it highlights the relevance of Christianity as a source for illiberal politics in a secularizing environment, and the relevance of actors with Christian affiliations, who strive for illiberal agendas especially with regard to moral issues. In the conclusion, we bring these three perspectives under the umbrella of ambivalence together. The following first section, thus, is dedicated to an understanding of ambivalence as an overarching or meta-condition for processes of and objections to changes which are traditionally seen as being part of or a consequence of modernization: socio-cultural or value change, secularization and a transformed relevance of (Christian) religion, but also Europeanization.

We see the ambivalences of contemporary developments which are rooted in modernization, secularization and democratization processes as the central condition for illiberal entanglements within the political and religious spheres. Referring to Zygmunt Bauman, we are reminded by Beichelt et al. (2019, 9), that “modernity and modernization are based on potentially destructive elements. The actual scope of destruction and construction may depend on the question of whether and how violence and power may be distributed, transformed and institutionally channeled. The becoming of Europe comprises remarkable examples in both directions, thereby, indicating that the ambivalences of modernization translate into the ambivalences of Europeanization.”

We are convinced that the scientific awareness of contradictory developments and their institutionalization in Europe and beyond helps to better understand the dynamic of antagonisms in democracies between liberal and illiberal politics. Considering ambivalence as “meta-condition” also has implications for democratic theory and empirical analyzing why religious—in our context Christian—ideas, actors and their strategies become relevant for illiberal, and, thus culturally or nationally exclusivist or anti-constitutionalist politics. In an epistemological sense, ambivalence implies here a non-teleological and less normative view on dynamics between liberal-democratic consensus building and counter-movements. As we develop later on, socio-cultural change of values and its translation into policies are central manifestations of ambivalence. For democratic theory and the conceptualization of “the illiberal”, ambivalence turns into a meta-perspective. This implies that democracy should be approached as a dynamic entanglement of liberal and illiberal elements.

In the modern era, Europe has generally served as a major battleground for its relevant contradictions. On the one...