Labda tupate mawazo ya Juma Mwapachu aliyoyatoa katika kitabu chake cha
CONFRONTING NEW REALITIES Reflections on Tanzanias Radical Transformation tuone nae mawazo yake yakoje
RELIGION AND POLITICS: THE FEARS AND THE REALITY
By the side of every religion is
to be found a political opinion, which is
connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society in
a uniform manner, and man will endeavour to harmonise earth and heaven.
-Alexis de Tocqueville:
Democracy in America.
Introduction:
The emergence of political pluralism in Tanzania has not only promoted free expression, particularly through the print media, but has also given birth to what is proving to be a new but potentially destabilising phenomenon, namely the rise of religious involvement in matters of a social, economic and political character. Much as religion is emerging throughout the world as the political language of our time, questions are being raised whether the active and high profile role religious groups are now playing in society is not a violation of secularism. In addition, questions are also asked whether secularism, in itself, infers that religious leaders should not express opinions of a political character or, whether, in fact, it merely means the non- involvement of religion in the formation and organisation of political parties. The central question that features in this debate is what constitutes politics for which religion should be restrained from involvement? Where does one draw the line, for example, between issues that concern a state of deepening poverty, that is entrenching, on the one hand, and politics properly so-called, on the other? And what is politics, properly so- called?
As political pluralism deepens in Tanzania and as questions of race, ethnicity, tribalism, poverty and wealth redistribution take the centre stage of political debate and election manifestos, the role of religion in society could not be simply brushed aside in the name of secularism. Both the state and religion would have to re-examine the fundamentals of secularism in the context of a new pluralistic environment- domestic and global- and also re-define the rules of the game.
The Emergence of State-Religion Differences
It is difficult to determine whether any fundamental differences or even conflict arose between state and religion under Julius Nyerere's one party political system. If it existed, then it was centrifugal. In a way, in spite of the socialist policies of Nyerere that embraced the nationalisation of schools and hospitals, owned and managed by religious groups in 1969 and 1972 respectively, little or nothing surfaced in terms of open criticism of those policies. Those were the days when there was no free press. It is therefore possible that if any criticisms existed, they were muzzled.
However, in recent years and especially since 1994, there has been increased interest in the role of religion in initiating and promoting far-reaching changes in society. Whilst Christian groups have taken the lead in this new role, Moslems have not been left far behind. Notable interventions in this context have been the Dodoma and Bagamoyo Declarations of Lutheran Bishops in the 1990s. However, it is the Bagamoyo Declaration released in March 1994 titled,
The Democracy of Politics and Economics(Demokrasia ya Kisiasa Na Kiuchumi) that set the pace, in terms of timing and radicalism. In the main, that Declaration postulated, We as Church leaders cannot avoid being involved in various issues embracing economic, political, social and spiritual issues since this constitutes the mission of the Church. Moreover, we agreed that, since in its very functioning, the Church recognises the freedom of expression of every human being so as to forge development, unity, love and solidarity across the religious, racial ethnic, gender or ideological divide, there was need to educate the public on problems which face them.
In detail, the Bagamoyo and Dodoma Declarations encapsulated the following:
Ÿ the Tanzania economy was promoting the interests of foreigners and foreign capitalists who, after benefiting, nothing behind and forced the government to accept stringent conditionalities as a basis for getting assistance thereby eroding national economic freedom.
Ÿ economic and political democracy was not adequately transparent as to enable all the people to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to be better protected by state organs in order to enjoy better social services delivered by the state without their resorting to offering bribes and to enjoy equal access to education, commerce, health services, energy etc.
Ÿ for political pluralism to benefit the people, there was need to have few and strong political parties. Such parties should seek to unite where possible to ensure that political opposition was strengthened.
Ÿ political parties should recognise that opposition was not confrontation. Therefore, they should build a culture oftolerance and mutual respect.
Ÿ a single government was the only structure that could represent the interests of both sides of the Union. Where such structure proved difficult toachieve, a three-government structure should be adopted.
Ÿ effective democracy could not be achieved where repressive laws remained in place. In that regard, the Nyalali Commission recommendations on repressive laws should be implemented.
Ÿ to preserve peace and tranquillity, the ruling party should stop the monopolisation of state organs such as the Radio Tanzania for its own benefit.
Ÿ the ruling party should not lead political change without taking into cognisance peoples opinions and wishes especially in respect to the call for holding a national conference to draft a new Constitution.
Ÿ corruption was a cancer at all levels ofnational leadership.
Ÿ the national interest had not been safeguarded in the allocation of land citing the Monduli land Loliondo Scandals where the Maasai had complained about their pastoral lands being offered to foreign nationals to be turned into beef ranches and for game hunting.
Ÿ peddling narcotics constituted a serious threat to the nation. The greed for getting rich quickly had made some businesspersons turn Tanzania into a market for narcotics.
Ÿ trade liberalisation had reinforced economic and social stratification. Evasion of taxes and customs duties had become the order of the day; so was the importation of commodities unfit for human consumption.
Ÿ government leaders should uncouple themselves from being overly influenced and manipulated by the rich in society.
The Moslem leadership also expressed concerns. They included:
- Moslems are being deliberately marginalised through an inequitable education system that favoured Christians.
- Moslems have not been given equal recognition in the sharing of key responsibilities of the state, at levels of ministers, regional commissioners permanent secretaries and parastatal chief executives.
- The marriage law and the inheritance law violated Islamic law and the prescriptions of the Holy Koran.
Sometime in 1994, the Chief Sheikh of Tanzania Mainland threatened Jihad had the government proceeded with the enactment of a new inheritance law that sought to introduce the right to matrimonial home by a wife, a concept not recognised under Islamic law. Recently, late in 2004, the Imams in Zanzibar put up a proposal before the Minister for Constitutional affairs recommending the introduction of Islamic law or Sharia.
Many of the concerns raised above may have lost relevance today. However, in addressing the more fundamental question about the looming threat to secularism, they are outlined here to provide the framework for a discussion. The key question is whether the interventions by religious groups are political in the secular sense and thus constitute a legal or constitutional trespass. At least in as far as the Dodoma and Bagamoyo Declarations are concerned, President Mwinyi found them, to an extent, to constitute a trespass. In a National Address on 4th August 1994, President Mwinyi observed as follows: I recognise that religious leaders are nationals and, in that capacity, have as much right as any other national to air their views on political matters. I do not intend ever to refuse the Bishops this fundamental right. However, they should refrain from using the media and instead either use face-to-face deliberations with the state or send their views by post to respective political leaders.
Religion and Democracy
Between 1995 and presently, there have been several cases where religious leaders and especially those of the Christian faith, who, in their personal capacities or through conferences and religious occasions, have expressed views and concerns about the state of politics and development in Tanzania. For instance, the Episcopal Conference on several occasions has been vociferous in pointing out that the government was not effectively addressing poverty and corruption. It would also be recalled that in the immediate period prior to the holding of ward and village elections towards the end of 2004, both the Episcopal Conference and the Christian Council of Tanzania issued declarations calling for free, fair and peaceful elections. The declarations condemned continued prevalence of corruption and the culture of politicians not to readily accept electoral defeats.
In such an environment, what should be brought to the fore is the question: since religion is a faith and faith has the potential to ignite fanaticism, passions and perceptions amongst followers within religions, is it advisable that Bishops, Reverends, Rabbis, Sheikhs and other religious leaders should raise or discuss political issues at religious sittings and settings and make resolutions on them either against a legally constituted government or simply about the state of politics in the country? Believers know that religious faith knows no democracy. Those who have studied theology and have been ordained are supposed to help the believers to understand the Word of God through teachings in Churches, Mosques and other places of worship, not through political platforms or turning the pulpits into platforms for making political statements. Politics knows no Bible or Koran in a secular state; neither does it have a Bishop nor Sheikh. That is why politics is managed through democracy; that is why it needs the will of the people through the ballot box. Where would Tanzania be were opinions of religious leaders to coincide, for example, with those of political parties in the opposition?
Tanzania recognised the danger of mixing religion with politics early. That is the reason why, at the time of the promulgation of the multiparty system in 1992, the government prohibited the establishment of political parties based on religion. It would be absurd to debar political parties founded on religion, on the one hand, and proceed to allow religious groups to intervene in politics as they pleased, on the other hand. Yes, the government needs religious leaders to identify and castigate evils and wrong doings in society. Thus, to condemn corruption is their right. So is it to raise concern about the erosion of the moral fabric in society. However, for religious leaders to criticise the structure of the Union of Tanzania and to denigrate the Union Constitution at religious sittings is to transgress the boundaries of their mission as spiritual leaders. During the CCM 28th Anniversary celebrations in Dar-Es-Salaam, in February 2005, the Tanzania Vice President, Dr. Ali Mohamed Shein warned about the rising tide of religion in politics. He called upon religious leaders who wish to be in politics to quit their religious positions and form or join political parties. The Vice Presidents strong remarks were made in response to reports that about 20 odd Moslem clerics, or Imams, of Dar-Es-Salaam mosques had joined hands to campaign for a specific Moslem Presidential candidate, ostensibly in order to promote Moslem interests.
Is there a Boundary: Where is the Boundary?
This upsurge in religion involvement in politics poses the inevitable question whether a boundary indeed exists between religion and politics and where that boundary line runs. Is it possible, in modern society, to have a precise and clear-cut boundary between religion and politics? In fact, President Mwinyi admitted in his above-cited national address that what had surprised him about the Dodoma Declaration was not so much what was contained in it or that the Bishops held such views as contained in the declaration, as the methodology that the Bishops had used to communicate their views, namely using the media. The President had wished that the views of the Bishop should have been submitted directly to the government. The President isolated two issues from the Bishops' Declaration, which, in his view, were clearly of a political character: the legitimacy of the Union Constitution and the structure of the Tanzania Union. The political views cited are contained in two paragraphs of the Bagamoyo Declaration. Paragraph 1.12 states: With respect to the Union of Tanzania, we the Bishops assert that in order to have a Union structure which will be representative and which will equitably promote the interests of both sides it is necessary to have a one Union government structure. If the implementation of this proposal would be impossible, then it is imperative that there be a three Union government structure. Moreover, under paragraph 1.2.5, it is asserted as follows: the ruling party should not take the reigns of spearheading democratic pluralism in defiance of the views and opinions of the people regarding the holding of a national conference to draft a constitution.
Clearly, the contents of these two paragraphs are of a political character and have serious political ramifications. However, did the Bishops disregard the boundary between state and religion in putting forth their view? Do religious leaders, like elected politicians, represent, by definition, the views of the people in that sense of representation when they make declarations of the type cited above? On the one hand, there is a strong body of opinion, ostensibly centred on secular philosophies, that holds that religious groups should seek ways and means of defending and promoting democratic values without becoming embroiled in political activity and even partisan debate. President Mwinyi appeared to belong to such group. President Mwinyi cited Jesus' call in
Mathew: 22.21to render therefore into Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and into God the things that are God's, as sufficient evidence of the divine separation of religion and politics.
The opposing body of opinion, on the other hand, points to the danger of a rigid separation between private conscience and public activity. It is contended, that when religious groups abdicate taking positions on public issues this may reflect that religion only addresses the concerns of private life, that it is confined to issues of private morality. In such circumstances, society would inevitably run the risk of living with public policies that violated moral principles. In this light, religion should also impart the
sacred character to democratic values. In other words, it should intervene between the individual and the state. Indeed, in response to Mathew 22.21 and in this specific context, Professor Kenneth D. Wald, in his book
Religion and Politics in the United States observes that the cited verse does not define precisely what it is that humanity owes to the state and to church. Depending on how responsibility is allocated between God and Caesar, that biblical injunction may be interpreted as a ca11 to revolution or, at the other extreme, as a plea for servility.
The Role of Religion in Society
Whenever caught up in a political or economic philosophical problem, Tanzanians have established for themselves a culture of resorting to the views of the Father of the Nation, the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, for clarification. What then does Nyerere offer on the subject of religion and society? In my opinion, he offers a pathbreaking analysis and opinion. In a brilliant speech to the Mary Knoll Sisters in New York in October 1970, titled,
The Church and Society, Mwalimu Nyerere cogently analysed the role of the Church (read religion) in the development of man. He observed that the Church had for a long time been guilty of preaching resignation, viewing social, economic and political conditions as immutable and taking an innocent bystander stance when the victims of poverty and oppression rebelled. Nyerere further noted that unless the Church participated actively in the rebellion against the social, economic and political structures, which condemn people to poverty, humiliation and degradation, it would lose its credibility and would thereby be identified with injustice and oppression.
Nyerere argued that development of people involved economic development, social development and political development and that the Church had a crucial role to play in all these facets. To quote him: For the purpose of the Church is man - his human dignity, and his right to develop himself in freedom. To the service of man's development, any or all of the institutions of any particular society must be sacrificed if this should be necessary. For all human institutions, including the Church, are established in order to serve man. And it is the institution of the Church, through its members, which should be leading the attack on any organisation, or any economic, social or political structure which oppresses men, and which denies to them the right and power to live as the sons of a loving God. In reference to secularism, Nyerere noted that he was not arguing that the Church should abdicate its spiritual functions by becoming associated with political parties or political doctrines. Rather, his view was that it was important for the Church to refuse to be identified with unjust political and economic power groups. He stated, The Church must stand up for what it believes to be right; that is its justification and purpose. Nyererefurther argued that the role of the Church could sometimes demand that Church leaders involved themselves in nationalist freedom struggles and be part of social movements as well as working in opposition to established authorities and powers.
In addition, Nyerere postulated that the Church should participate actively in initiating, securing, and creating the changes that aim at promoting social justice. One may pose here and ask the question: Was Nyerere going too far in his interpretation of religion as a force for change? It is of special note that Nyerere was advocating these radical views at a time when he wielded massive, almost unchallenged political power in Tanzania. No political opposition was allowed to operate at that material time. In fact, Nyerere had even banned the All Muslim National Union of Tanganyika. In its place, he promoted the establishment of what several Moslems viewed as a surrogate national religious representative body, BAKWATA (Baraza la Waislam Tanzania), ostensibly, a calculated and strategic move to put Moslems under close oversight by the state.
Yet what Nyerere postulated about the role of religion in society makes sense. In this context, stark realities around the world show that religious groups are taking a frontal role in politics, even more pronouncedly than Nyerere could ever have perceived. For instance,
The Khaleej Times,a leading United Arab Emirates Daily Newspaper, of Friday 11th November 1994 featured a news headline, cited from Reuters, titled Evangelicals claim victory creditin the US Congressional and State elections. It is of interest to quote the feature story fully: The right-wing Christian Coalition, a growing force in the Republican Party, claimed much of the credit -- for the Party's dramatic victory in US Congressional and state elections. The Christian Coalition, which says it has one million members organised a major get-out-to vote effort for the elections, distributing some 33 million pieces of campaign literature, much of them through churches. It said that an exit poll it commissioned showed that religious conservatives accounted for one- third of all votes cast in the elections, compared to only 18% in 1988, and 22% in 1992. Of these, 68% backed Republicans in Senate races and a slightly higher proportion in Governors' races. The same feature story went on to report that the Christian Coalition pushes moral issues such as prayer in schools, family values and fervent opposition to abortion. But increasingly, it has also been campaigning on more mainstream themes, such as lower taxes and smaller government.
The United States of America is a secular state by its constitution. How then are religious bodies like the Christian Coalition allowed to take active political role in society? When the United States preaches about liberty and democracy, should nascent democracies like those of Tanzania view the role of religion in politics as relevant? How can this not be the reality? Of course, the United States may be a bad example to cite in examining the relationship between religion and politics. The US, after all, is dominantly a Christian nation, its diverse Christian denominations notwithstanding. Thus the direct role that the Christian Coalition plays in politics may probably not cause the same level of rancour as it would in a country like Tanzania where there exist two dominant religious faiths, Islam and Christianity, and particularly where such religious groups pursue opposing electoral objectives. This could be the reason why President Mwinyi had responded harshly to the Bishops Declarations. He naturally feared the threat of religion becoming a vehicle of electoral politics and choices. However, it may not have been possible to debar religious groups from expressing opinions about political issues. What should be disallowed are religious groups becoming directly involved in promoting the interests of political contestants in elections on religious lines.
Conclusion
Religion is emerging as an inevitable political factor in the Tanzanian political scene. The underestimation of this phenomenon for a long time had been due to two main reasons. First, the mistaken belief that secularisation of Tanzanian life was inevitable. Secondly, the superficial homogeneity of the Tanzanian society that has been ingrained in society since independence through a hegemonic political party system and by socialism. Times have now changed with the on-set of political and economic pluralisms. In this liberal environment, the sacredness of the concept of a secular state has increasingly confronted the ideal, constitutional, secular state. In this context, I agree with Yale Professor, Lamin Sanneh, who, in an article titled
, Religion and Politics: Third World Perspectives, posits the proximity of religion and politics in practical situations modifies any rigid separation of the two, and, conversely, the instrumental nature of politics implies at least a national distinction between them. Ideally, there are as sound religious grounds as there are pragmatic ones for not confusing religion and politics, though, in practice, it is risky to attempt splitting the two.
Tanzanians should therefore openly discuss and debate the relationship between religion and politics if they are to deepen their understanding of the emerging phenomenon and its impact on national unity, peace and stability. More importantly, and especially in electoral politics, it is pertinent that government exercises greater restraint and tolerance over national issues raised by religious leaders. Government and political leaders should apply dialogue and guidance instead of a confrontational approach in the public domain which could, unnecessarily, fuel tension and inevitable instability. This is important as Tanzania, like the rest of the world, continues to come face to face with the fear factor about terrorism and about the misconstrued role of Islamic fundamentalism, a subject that I turn to next.
