Does freedom of religion improve the political well-being of a country? by Sarah Rubombora

In many ways, I would say that freedom of religion is important for any country’s political well-being. The statistics presented in Pew’s report reveal the dangers of not having specific laws allowing freedom of religion as well as an established social practice of adhering to those laws. Human beings are complex creatures and when bunched together on basis of faith it is harder for them to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Freedom of religion is one of those ideas intended to stop the marginalization of one religious group in favour of another with each having the freedom to worship. It is interesting how even when freedom of religion is recognised by state law, its implementation does not necessarily translate into peaceful co-existence or an accepted adherence of those laws by the society in which they exist.

The BBC news recently featured a story of Egyptian Coptic Christian protests in the capital against the oppression they were receiving by their Muslim counterparts. Instead of being heard, their peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the military interim government who reportedly drove an army truck into the crowd of protestors. Egyptian Law does not prohibit Coptic Christians from practicing their religion but among the people of Egypt who are mainly Muslim, there is a growing consensus that Egypt should fully assert its Muslim identity. This leaves little room for religious tolerance of competing religions especially Christianity.
However, it would make sense if a state chose a religion to adhere to based on its majority following among the people. It would give clear boundaries to those of contrasting religions on how far they can go to assert themselves in a society that does not appreciate their views or presence. It would also avoid a long line of battles that would stem from the inevitable bias of government towards the dominant religion. There would be a lot more peaceful co-existence based on the people’s values. Not everyone can be made happy, but by pleasing the majority a government can go a long way to bringing maximum happiness to its people.

Having a State religion favoured by majority of the people and implemented by the government is important. Pews report put forward an interesting discovery of how countries that have gone to great lengths to implement freedom of religion and non-discrimination such as the United Kingdom and France have ended up on the opposite side of the scale by oppressing the very religions they are trying to streamline. Nurses in Britain can be dismissed from their jobs if they pray with patients and France has the ban on wearing Muslim headscarves in schools. Rather than pretending to be neutral, states should just go with the majority and be fair by recognising the need for other religions to have a voice even if it is not the dominant voice.
Freedom of religion from the perspective that everyone has equal benefits and freedom from being not openly opposed is unrealistic. If Pew’s report only recorded religious intolerance from the period of mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the age of democracy, global co-operation and the United Nations with its numerous Conventions and agreements that actively promote freedom of religion, it should be clear that it cannot always work the way it is codified in law. The political well-being of a country rests on the ability of a government to recognise the needs and wants of its people and find a peaceful way of implementing and maintaining those desires.

In Countries with two or more dominant religions, an emphasis on recognising each religion in various aspects of governance and maintaining a proper balance especially in areas where people of those religions mix will be the test of success in such a country. Mutual respect must be demanded but in recognition of dominant religions and clear boundaries for where those religions have an upper hand in society. Christians and Muslims in Uganda have gone as far as creating an Inter-religious Council that allows Ugandans of the dominant religious groups to have a say on what laws should be put in place against human sacrifice and against homosexuality. This kind of co-existence improves the political well-being in a State and achieves what freedom of religion is meant to achieve on a more realistic scale.

Freedom of religion may attempt to improve the political well-being of a country but it does not always achieve this because it fails to recognise the need for recognition of dominant faiths within society and respect for their position. Its call for non-discrimination and peaceful co-existence is important and needed but it is doomed to fail in implementation where streamlining all religions is the method used. There has to be a recognition of dominant religions by governments as a starting point and from there a culture of respect and peaceful co-existence fostered from that source. People want peace, they do not want to be made to believe one thing or the other. However, if respecting the beliefs of another religion while freely and openly practicing one’s own is the way one can attain such peace in an ever-changing world, then majority of people will choose peaceful co-existence to religious and political conflict.

What role does Christianity play in the Constitutions of Majority Christian African Nations? by Kakuru Timothy

It appears that having a majority Christian population these days is about as influential in the making of a constitution as religious leaders speaking out on violence. I find it odd that the states that boast a rich heritage in the Christian faith eventually seem to, in well-meaning be led down the most unchristian path.

Today, A constitution is not considered democratic unless it enshrines the Fundamental Human Rights that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dictates – however these have long departed from the concept of Christianity to just stemming from some “inalienable right.” Since the Western world deems the structure of a democracy to be a suitable solution to all the social problems that mar the face of Africa, African states have vehemently strove to adopt it. Even faced with histories so tainted by, repugnant culture, civil disobedience and cultural inequalities based on population demographics that render democracy a comic show of hopeless bravado; democracy is the choice. And what shouts “democracy” more than a state led by a constitution put together with the support of the population? Apparently, nothing!

Uganda, Kenya and South Africa are just some of the African countries that have over the course of history been described as Christian and have adopted Constitutions based on democracy believing earnestly in the ability of democracy to change an ailing nation for the better. However, the question is; has Christianity played a role in the Constitution making process? These three countries are used as a case study;

Uganda is an East African country with over 88% of its population Christian. In the constitution making process of Uganda, the Uganda Joint Christian council played a role to reflect the sentiments of the religious population of Uganda. The human rights attributed to the constitution and also the freedoms granted for worship all reflect a Christian sentiment. However, some provisions such as that of the state being able to authorise the termination of a life may be deemed as against Christianity. In the Odoki Commission (the study carried out to determine the content of the constitution), the Chief Justice as he then was found that a majority of Ugandans supported the death penalty as a form of punishment as it was part of culture for someone who had killed a person, to also themselves be killed. Therefore, it appears that the majority of Ugandans which certainly includes Christians preferred to be ruled under customary norms at the expense of the Christian understanding of the sanctity of life.

South Africa. With its history of Apartheid rule characterised by a racial discrimination so intense that people were actually jailed for having sexual intercourse with those of a different race enacted its constitution in 1996. Although there was an intention at adhering to what are considered Christian principles, the underlying motive behind the enactment of this constitution was making sure that the atrocities that were committed against people during the apartheid rule were never repeated again. This is why the constitution is so preoccupied with human rights. Although human rights are a Christian sentiment- after all, viewing every human as equal in the eyes of God and as a neighbour is as Christian as we can get, I believe the South African constitution goes overboard with the human rights to the extent that it side-lines morality for those rights. Although Christianity can be credited for bringing morality and human rights to the foreground when making a constitution- it has taken backseat to the numerous “freedoms” and inherent rights in South Africa, getting more and more away from religious principle even though (as of 2001) an apparent 79.8% of all South Africans are reportedly Christian.

In The Republic of Kenya, Just like in South Africa, the constitution was drafted and enacted after political turmoil that left many Kenyans injured and others killed. it appears the newly enacted constitution had a strong opposition from the Christian community. A joint statement signed off by leaders from 30 different Christian groups and denominations claimed that “the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways.” In a country where 78% of the population is Christian , I would expect that if ever Christians had a say what went into their countries Constitution- Kenyan’s Christians would be them. On 4th August 2010 the people of Kenya voted for the Constitution which in promulgation brought into legality abortion, despite the Church leaders crying themselves hoarse over the matter. I found this frankly exasperating and I’m sure so did the church leaders who vehemently opposed this law.

Is Christian morality back seated for what is regarded as freedom of individuals? It appears so, our law promulgators cannot entirely be blamed for they enact laws they know the population will support and follow- and in the case of Kenya, laws voted for by the people. Where disaster has claimed lives and livelihoods, erased peace and restricted freedoms the result appears to be a nation seeking unbounded rights. I find it hard to distinguish these countries constitutions from hedonistic societies. It is apparent to me that although a country has got a large Christian community- where it has gone through disastrous strife, the “conservative” Christian restrictions enshrined in morality are foregone for the freedom which the people have been deprived. In this way Christianity is given second place to freedom of choice even when the deciding country is majorly Christian.

Sources

http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kenyan-christian-leaders-stand-together-against-proposed-constitution-46117/

Links to Student Op-Ed Pieces

Here are links to two pieces written by students of the Law and Christian Political Thought class.

Both pieces are imaginative Op-Ed articles on the "Walk to Work" controversy written in the voice of prominent Christian philosophers from the past.

This piece is written in the voice of Thomas Aquinas by Atukunda Rachael Zaramba.

This piece is written in the voice of Martin Luther by Turinawe Patrick

What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa? by Sarah Rubombora

Editor's Note: This student journal entry references the article Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics A Plea for a Non-party Polity by Kwasi Wiredu which is available on the Internet via this Link

What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa?

This depends on what one considers ‘Christian’ in application to a political order. Based on our last class, I would consider freewill or the ability to choose to be part of a system or support a candidate of one’s choice to govern is that factor on what is Christian in a political model. In that case what/whichever system grants one the most ability to choose without fear or coercion is the “most Christian” political model. I would add another element of a system that upholds moral choices and does not advocate for violence as a ‘Christian’ political model.

I consider there to be three types of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa namely actual/authentic democracies; dictatorial democracies and autocracies. I consider actual democracy to be the “most Christian” political model, only if it contains a representative based Parliament whom citizens vote into office. The aspect of freewill is most evident in that system of politics because from the start, the people get to choose who they want to lead them or make laws on their behalf.

On the other hand, Wiredu’s proposition of a non-partisan, consensus driven political model would naturally take the lead over democracy if it were applicable. It lacks, as he says, the winner takes all approach and caters for the needs of the minority or marginalized groups in society. From a Christian perspective I think of the nature of Jesus and His total disregard for society norms and hierarchies. He is hailed by Christians and non-Christians alike for His down-to-earth approach to human lives and His ability to cut across age, sex, social standing and find common ground on the principles of God. Wiredu would have applauded this bringing together of people and would believe that his model of political order best exemplifies the nature of Christ which is the basis of Christian living.

But, like Wiredu, I do not believe that with all the mix and tension of different cultures and beliefs in modern day societies, that his political model can work. There are too many conflicting interests and those who benefit from the top-down political orders with perks such as power, wealth and recognition are unlikely to welcome a ‘more Christian’ way of politics. But I believe that democracy, if well implemented, is the best example of a Christian political model in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Functioning democracies in countries such as South Africa and Botswana place emphasis on granting their citizens rights and freedoms. Even though there is a clear separation between the church and the state in such countries, the freedom to choose leaders and ideals that are largely symbolic of the moral structure of Christian ethos make democracy a worthwhile choice.
By Sarah Rubombora

What if Thomas Aquinas had run for President of Uganda against Augustine?

Click the following link for a mock speech written by Nakabugo Florence Grace.

Thomas Aquinas Speech

Student Blog Entry: Matsiko Godwin Muhwezi on RIchard Hooker

It is no mean feat to analyse Richard Hooker’s political philosophy as set out in the Law of Ecclesiastical Polity because it is marred with a lot of paradox. He seems to jump from one opinion to a blanket stereotype of its context as if he does not want to take sides. That is what makes it hard to infer the relevance of his philosophy into contemporary Uganda.

When Hooker posits that nature itself teaches laws and statutes to live by, what rings a bell is that since he was greatly influenced by Aristotle, he is a disciple of the natural school of law. On this sort of queue there is not much relevance because with the Constitution as the supreme law of Uganda and the parliament as the chief promulgator, we lean more to the positivist side.

Yet still, if I take his presupposition literally, Hooker suggests that in nature there are laws that extend to us by some sort of osmosis and become second nature. This assertion accounts for the humongous public support for the Anti-Gay (Bahati) Bill of 2009 and the recent anti-Mabira give away movement. The vehemence with which Ugandans unite for such movements despite our ethnic disparities speaks volumes on how nature influences our politics.

Hooker’s Commonweal philosophy is also one that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. He writes that civil society fulfils the nature of man more than any private kind of solitary living. By this he suggests that man is always craving for fellowship and this can be seen in the string of kingdoms that Uganda had long before colonialism. It is however simplistic to assume that with a commonwealth it is always bliss. In Ankole for example the people rejected the reinstatement of their former kingdom because of the inhuman treatment they had suffered against the tyrant kings such as having the king’s spear rest in a human foot!

Another problematic aspect of Hooker’s political philosophy is his classification of the law. He rightly categorises primary laws as those grounded upon sincere nature and secondary laws as those based on the depraved nature. He however abstains from submitting on the contents of the Law of nations. In contemporary Uganda, there is a web of international law seeping its way into our jurisprudence. This for example consists of the green revolution which has given birth to our environmental law. Since it is not easy to distance the law of nations from the law of war and since the primary law such as that of embassage is patronised by political and economic interests, his classification of the law is wanting in a way.
I also find it hard to comprehend the notion that we always consent to the laws that exist. Hooker writes that only wise men should be admitted to law making, that we assent to the laws through our predecessors. Not only is it questionable that our legislators fall into the intellectual ambit that Hooker contemplated but also whether we consent to the directives from sovereign authority. The army of Uganda is wrought with arbitrary legislations and the array of torture cases that are disguised in anti-terrorism legislation leave a lot to be desired.

Furthermore, hooker is unconvincing when he says that laws never change without reason and that such a reason never comes by because the source code remains. This does not even register in the biblical context. For example when Jesus was asked about divorce in the Law of Moses, he said that such a law was merely an accommodation of the callous hearts of the Israelites but that the threshold had since risen. In our political environment, when political ambitions change, laws follow suit and this is clearly evident in the amendment of our Constitution to remove term limits and adopt a multi-party system.

Lastly, Hooker’s advocacy for Ecclesiastical polity has failed to be reflected in Uganda. He writes that the church as a society should adopt Councils General for administrative purposes independent of secular government like the earlier Apostles did. In the Roman Catholic Church there is a semblance of this but that is all there is. Just as his philosophy caused problems with Queen Elizabeth 1 in her capacity as the then head of the Church of England, today the Anglican Church is called the Church of Uganda and enjoys extreme patronage such as when Bishops get cars from the government on their inauguration. It is therefore not a breather to attempt at creating a divide between church and state. After all, with Hooker’s latitudinarian approach, the law has to ultimately be obeyed whether evil or sacred and so even in Uganda our secular law takes precedence over church polity of any sort.

Link to Syllabus for September 2011

Link to Syllabus on Scribd