1. Introduction
The theory of state neutrality, grounded in secularism and the separation of public and private affairs, provides a favorable basis for the flourishing of the public sphere. These two ideas share important affinities, including freedom, equality, and pluralism. However, fundamental conflicts also exist between them, raising challenges for the realization of public discourse in a democratic context. Jürgen Habermas identifies two main challenges: (1) the conflict between solidarity and individualism and (2) the conflict within the concept of autonomy, namely between private and public autonomy. The present study aimed to examine these conflicts, particularly within the frameworks of liberalism and neoliberalism. The research question is as follows: Which inconsistencies between the theory of state neutrality and the idea of the public sphere have undermined the realization of public discourse in a democratic context?
2. Literature Review
Many studies have examined the public sphere, predominantly from a sociological perspective. However, only a few have addressed this topic in the fields of law and political philosophy. For example, in “Public Sphere and Perfectionism in Fundamental Rights: The Case of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Mohammadi and Mashhadi (2025) explored the relationship between the public sphere and perfectionist theory within the framework of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mashhadi (2015) also addressed the topic in the article titled “From Privatization of Public Law to Publicization of Private Law: Legitimacy and Intervention of Liberal Capitalist State in the Thought of Habermas.” Nevertheless, none of these studies has examined the fundamental conflicts between the public sphere and the theory of state neutrality within the context of liberalism in Habermas’s thought.
3. Materials and Methods
The present research adopted a critical–analytical approach. It first clarified the concept of public sphere and the theory of state neutrality on the basis of the ideas of Habermas and other liberal theorists. The study then examined the fundamental conflicts between these two theories, including the conflict between solidarity and individualism and the conflict between private and public autonomy.
4. Results and Discussion
Although the theory of state neutrality provides a favorable ground for the flourishing of the public sphere and shares important affinities with it, it also gives rise to significant conflicts that hinder the full realization of the public sphere. The first challenge is the conflict between solidarity and individualism. Centered on individualism, the theory of state neutrality emphasizes the protection of private interests. Habermas, however, argues that this overemphasis on individualism weakens the solidarity necessary for advancing public interests. These challenges are further intensified in the context of neoliberalism, with its strong emphasis on free markets and competition, which undermines the foundations of Habermasian solidarity. For this reason, Habermas rejects absolute secularism and regards the presence of religion in the public sphere as necessary for fostering solidarity, while still insisting on the complete separation of state and religion.
The second challenge concerns the conflict within the concept of autonomy, namely between private and public autonomy. The theory of state neutrality places primary emphasis on private autonomy, whereas Habermas regards both forms of autonomy as equally important. In a Hayekian or neoliberal state, private autonomy may come to dominate public autonomy, thereby disrupting the balance necessary for the legitimacy of law and the dynamism of the public sphere. To address this dilemma, Habermas proposes a system of five fundamental rights in which private and public autonomy are interrelated, and both private and public interests are realized through the processes of public discourse and lawmaking.
The conflicts between the theory of state neutrality and the Habermasian public sphere, particularly in the context of neoliberalism, pose serious challenges to democracy and to the formation of the collective will. An excessive emphasis on individualism and private autonomy can weaken social solidarity and public participation. Habermas’s attempt to balance private and public autonomy, together with his recognition of the constructive role of religion in strengthening solidarity, offers important ways of addressing these challenges and reinforcing both the public sphere and democracy.
5. Conclusion
In sum, despite the theoretical affinities between the theory of state neutrality and the public sphere, fundamental conflicts arise in practice that hinder the full realization of public discourse in democratic societies. These conflicts, particularly those concerning solidarity and the concept of autonomy, are profound and are further intensified within neoliberalism. Habermas’s proposed solutions, including a redefinition of solidarity and a balance between private and public autonomy, appear essential for addressing these challenges and strengthening participatory democracy. To achieve a dynamic and effective public sphere, these conflicts must be taken seriously, and strategies must be developed to establish the necessary balance between individual freedoms and collective interests.