Description: It is widely assumed that a well-designed and well-implemented constitution can help ensure religious harmony in modern states. Yet how correct is this assumption? Drawing on groundbreaking research from Sri Lanka, this book argues persuasively for another possibility: when it comes to religion, relying on constitutional law may not be helpful, but harmful; constitutional practice may give way to pyrrhic constitutionalism. Written in a lucid and direct style, and aimed at both specialists and non-specialists, Buddhism, Politics and the Limits of Law explains why constitutional law has deepened, rather than diminished, conflicts over religion in Sri Lanka. Examining the roles of Buddhist monks, civil society groups, political coalitions and more, the book provides the first extended study of the legal regulation of religion in Sri Lanka as well as the first book-length analysis of the intersections of Buddhism and contemporary constitutional law.
Brief description: Benjamin Schonthal is Senior Lecturer in Buddhism and Asian Religions at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He received his Ph.D. in the field of history of religions at the University of Chicago. His research examines the intersection of religion, law and politics in South and Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on Buddhism.
Review Quotes: 'All in all, this is a book that stands as an exemplar of how a dedicated scholar trained in relevant languages and working across disciplines on a single country case study can produce methodologically and conceptually significant research. And it is a book that challenges socio-legal researchers seeking to contest rather than simply affirm the received wisdom on the religious politics of comparative constitutional law to take more seriously those places, like Sri Lanka, and traditions, like Buddhism, that are usually relegated to the literature's margins. With Buddhism, Politics, and the Limits of Law, at least, Sri Lanka's experiences with pyrrhic constitutionalism shall now not be left out of the conversation.' Nick Cheesman, Law and Society Review