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/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment