Should clergy debate politics?
Jun 15, 2003
SHOULD religious leaders, particularly those in the clerical category such as Muslim sheikhs and Christian priests, pastorsors and bishops, be free to participate in political controversies?
The Other Side of the Coin
With Paul Waibale Senior
SHOULD religious leaders, particularly those in the clerical category such as Muslim sheikhs and Christian priests, pastorsors and bishops, be free to participate in political controversies? That is the hot issue currently exercising the minds of Ugandans affiliated to various versions of religious creeds and political inclinations.
The debate was precipitated by President Yoweri Museveni’s reaction to a statement attributed to a class of religious clerics which categorically rejected the proposal by the Movement that the limit of two terms for one person to hold the office of President of Uganda should be lifted.
President Museveni was recently reported to have castigated the religious leaders for overstepping the bounds of their lubimbi, urging them to concentrate on waging war against sin.
I, for one, cannot find a “no†or “yes†answer to the intriguing question that is being posed by parties, all of which have vested interests. I consider it prudent to explore the various aspects of the matter and expose some of the possible explanations available.
There is, for example, the view advanced by the Justice Forum leader, Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja, that religious leaders have a right to participate in political debates because the Constitution does not have any provision that prohibits them from doing so.
In my submission, that is a very narrow-minded approach which should be treated with the contempt it deserves. If the Constitution were to spell out all the dos and don’ts for each and every category of Ugandans, it would have to assume the geographical size of Uganda itself.
But although such a chaotic exercise was consciously avoided by those who wrote the Constitution, the limits to people’s freedom of action are, by and large, well defined by the rules of natural justice.
That is why Kibirige Mayanja cannot walk to the pulpit of Christ the King Church and deliver a sermon on the Islamic faith that Prophet Muhammad is God’s greatest prophet and get away with it. He certainly would not convince even God himself that he was free to do so since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids him.
Mayanja’s observation that President Museveni did not complain when the Chief Imam, Sheikh Nuhu Muzata, agitated
in support of the third term proposal, failed to appreciate one basic difference between Sheikh Muzata’s stand as an individual and the stand of a clerical body such as the Joint Christian Council or the Catholic Episcopal Conference.
In my contention, it is one thing for a religious leader to say, “I support the Third Term,†and quite another for a recognised body of priests or bishops to say, “The Church rejects the proposal to lift the limit on the presidential terms of office.†I contend that sheikhs, priests, bishops, cardinals, et cetra, have a constitutional right to express opinions on any national matters including politics. But they have no right to invoke their divine authority in the propagation of their opinions.
A Catholic, Anglican or Muslim priest has the liberty to oppose the Third Term, but he has no right to preach that the divine course is to oppose or support one political development or another. I am a devout Anglican but I would not accept a priest’s teaching that supporting or opposing the so-called third term proposal would make any difference to my divine aspiration to join Jesus Christ in heaven.
Interestingly the explanation offered by the religious leaders for opposing the Third Term proposal is that they want to preserve the Constitution against selfish measures to amend it. There is hardly any logic to support that line of argument. At least there would be no need for the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission if it was considered a taboo to have any of its provisions amended.
One absurd aspect of the situation is that many of those who oppose amending the Constitution to lift the presidential term limit are firm agitators for the amendment of the Constitution to introduce the federal system and to change from the Movement to the multiparty system of governance.
In other words, that category of Ugandans regard the Constitution as a sacred document that must not be tampered with only when the issue at stake is the Third Term. But once the issue turns out to be introducing federo or exterminating the Movement system, than amending the Constitution is a glorious political achievement.
The danger of political statements by religious leaders being mistaken for divine instructions is clearly manifested by claims by Catholic ex-seminarians that Prof Peter Kasenene should resign from his position as head of the Catholic laity because he opposed the rejection of the third term by the Catholic bishops.
According to the ex-seminarians, the bishops are the Pope’s representatives, therefore their decisions cannot be disputed. In other words, a good Catholic has to accept the bishops’ decision that lifting the limit on the presidential terms is unpalatable. How many Catholics are prepared to tie there divine status to a political theory manufactured without his consent in a factory superintended over by clerics whose expertise in politics has never been tested?
With Paul Waibale Senior
SHOULD religious leaders, particularly those in the clerical category such as Muslim sheikhs and Christian priests, pastorsors and bishops, be free to participate in political controversies? That is the hot issue currently exercising the minds of Ugandans affiliated to various versions of religious creeds and political inclinations.
The debate was precipitated by President Yoweri Museveni’s reaction to a statement attributed to a class of religious clerics which categorically rejected the proposal by the Movement that the limit of two terms for one person to hold the office of President of Uganda should be lifted.
President Museveni was recently reported to have castigated the religious leaders for overstepping the bounds of their lubimbi, urging them to concentrate on waging war against sin.
I, for one, cannot find a “no†or “yes†answer to the intriguing question that is being posed by parties, all of which have vested interests. I consider it prudent to explore the various aspects of the matter and expose some of the possible explanations available.
There is, for example, the view advanced by the Justice Forum leader, Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja, that religious leaders have a right to participate in political debates because the Constitution does not have any provision that prohibits them from doing so.
In my submission, that is a very narrow-minded approach which should be treated with the contempt it deserves. If the Constitution were to spell out all the dos and don’ts for each and every category of Ugandans, it would have to assume the geographical size of Uganda itself.
But although such a chaotic exercise was consciously avoided by those who wrote the Constitution, the limits to people’s freedom of action are, by and large, well defined by the rules of natural justice.
That is why Kibirige Mayanja cannot walk to the pulpit of Christ the King Church and deliver a sermon on the Islamic faith that Prophet Muhammad is God’s greatest prophet and get away with it. He certainly would not convince even God himself that he was free to do so since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids him.
Mayanja’s observation that President Museveni did not complain when the Chief Imam, Sheikh Nuhu Muzata, agitated
in support of the third term proposal, failed to appreciate one basic difference between Sheikh Muzata’s stand as an individual and the stand of a clerical body such as the Joint Christian Council or the Catholic Episcopal Conference.
In my contention, it is one thing for a religious leader to say, “I support the Third Term,†and quite another for a recognised body of priests or bishops to say, “The Church rejects the proposal to lift the limit on the presidential terms of office.†I contend that sheikhs, priests, bishops, cardinals, et cetra, have a constitutional right to express opinions on any national matters including politics. But they have no right to invoke their divine authority in the propagation of their opinions.
A Catholic, Anglican or Muslim priest has the liberty to oppose the Third Term, but he has no right to preach that the divine course is to oppose or support one political development or another. I am a devout Anglican but I would not accept a priest’s teaching that supporting or opposing the so-called third term proposal would make any difference to my divine aspiration to join Jesus Christ in heaven.
Interestingly the explanation offered by the religious leaders for opposing the Third Term proposal is that they want to preserve the Constitution against selfish measures to amend it. There is hardly any logic to support that line of argument. At least there would be no need for the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission if it was considered a taboo to have any of its provisions amended.
One absurd aspect of the situation is that many of those who oppose amending the Constitution to lift the presidential term limit are firm agitators for the amendment of the Constitution to introduce the federal system and to change from the Movement to the multiparty system of governance.
In other words, that category of Ugandans regard the Constitution as a sacred document that must not be tampered with only when the issue at stake is the Third Term. But once the issue turns out to be introducing federo or exterminating the Movement system, than amending the Constitution is a glorious political achievement.
The danger of political statements by religious leaders being mistaken for divine instructions is clearly manifested by claims by Catholic ex-seminarians that Prof Peter Kasenene should resign from his position as head of the Catholic laity because he opposed the rejection of the third term by the Catholic bishops.
According to the ex-seminarians, the bishops are the Pope’s representatives, therefore their decisions cannot be disputed. In other words, a good Catholic has to accept the bishops’ decision that lifting the limit on the presidential terms is unpalatable. How many Catholics are prepared to tie there divine status to a political theory manufactured without his consent in a factory superintended over by clerics whose expertise in politics has never been tested?