Over
the past couple of weeks there has been growing talk on the Government’s
intention of passing a law to further regulate certain religious and spiritual
establishments. Something else I have seen was the supposed move by the Uganda
Communications Commission (UCC) to ban adverts of religious and or spiritual emphases.
I am yet to read the actual policy documents and possible minutes of these
developments and should add that I am not particularly comfortable basing on
media reports for accurate information on what is on ground.
That
said, I surmise that it is not entirely premature for all concerned to introspect
on how we contribute to such conversations and if our involvement or
indifference absolves us from inevitable consequences if ideological divides
are crystallized into law. My contribution to this discussion is limited to two
aspects: The Constitutionality of such moves and the narrow spectrum of
Ecclesiastical Polity. For our present purposes, I do not intend to be too
technically specific but will try to point us to sources of detailed discussions
of relevant aspects. I also will not be generous enough to offer technical definitions
and detailed context of some of the perspectives I present. I also labour to
avoid an academic approach to this conversation so that despite our varied
vocations we may benefit from the conversation.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
Uganda
is considered a constitutional democracy. This simply means that the people of Uganda
have power of self-government, have consolidated a baseline of their wishes in
a document called a Constitution and through majority participation (universal
suffrage / referenda) or representative participation (through institutions
like Parliament) interact with the relevant frameworks of how they wish to be
governed.
Uganda
is governed under the Constitution of 1995 and some of the relevant clauses in
that document are those declaring Uganda a secular state and as such must not adopt
a state religion. The others relate to religious freedom, freedom of
association, right to information and freedom of speech. The Constitution is
also clear that any other law passed or in place is valid only as far as it is
consistent with the people’s wishes enshrined in the Constitution.
What does it meant to be a secular state or not to adopt a state
religion? That is a fair question to ask since most of the policy outlay is
seldom explicit with clear language on possible intention or conflict. The
actual test of such Constitutional guarantees is usually broad and far reaching
enough to comfort the citizens on why they chose to be governed that way in the
first place. For a law to be consistent with the spirit of our Article 7
(secular State), it must satisfy four tests: (i) It must not be seen to establish
religion. (ii) It must not serve a religious purpose. (iii) It must not endorse
a specific religion. (iv) It must not show that Government is being entangled
with religion. (I have discussed these tests in a previous “academic” paper on
a different subject: available at https://cepa.or.ug/analysis-of-cultural-and-constitutional-responses-to-comprehensive-sexuality-education-in-uganda/ )
Evidently the world has classic examples of religious states such as
Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia etcetera and they are not necessarily failing
states just because of their religious inclination (depending on the parameters
in question). However, when a people decide to take a secular path, laws passed
must serve a secular purpose and more importantly be consistent with the
cardinal wishes of such people especially those which are expressly evidenced
in the Constitution (grund norm). A more meticulous examination of existing regulation
would reveal that without prejudice to presumptions of innocence and the burden
of proving specific bits and pieces, most if not all possible indiscretions are
properly covered by penal laws, corporate structure and tax laws. That is not
to say that killing in the name of God is not to be prohibited. Certainly, there
is no place in civilisation for jihads, crusades (strictu senso) and forms of
mutilation shrouded in religious practice. We cannot ignore the fact that some
of the worst atrocities committed in recent history have resulted from states
using public trust machinery to castigate religious components albeit too
harshly. A sledge hammer to kill a fly approach usually boarders on violating
clear Constitutional principles and may lead to a costly process when citizens
choose to challenge it at whatever stage. Public accountability best practices
would demand that all boxes are ticked before policy decisions are made or
implemented.
ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY
This
is just a fancy term to refer to how religious setups are governed. Obviously,
it covers all historical debates on religious governance, the possibilities and
in there somewhere, the regrets and benefits we can credit for millennia of
co-existence. Religious teaching is generous on perspectives of honouring
leadership and that is just as well. On the flip side, there is risk of forming
an abhorrent sort of unholy alliance. Sometimes the line between some sort of
affirmative action and political convenience is blurred so much so that several
elements / assets of government may be deployed for benefit that may be inconsistent
with fundamentals of the given religious outfit itself and legitimate
Constitutional expectations that people might have of their political
representatives. To coin a term, I might say that we at times condone a type of
“religious
corruption”.
Having
for a fair number of years taught a university class titled “Law, Christian and
Political Thought” and inevitably marinated thousands of ancient texts and
graded a few opinions, I request to earn the right to have a favourite topic
and character. This is none other than Richard Hooker aka the Angelic Doctor. As
a lawyer, politician, lawmaker, writer and theologian who lived at the heart of
the advanced puritan reformation in ancient Europe and at a time of glaring
conflicts between church and state, he had one or two nuggets to both parties
in their respective spaces of expertise. He popularly posited that even for
those who wished to use scripture to inform their governance, there was a
difference amongst natural law, social law, political law and religious law (Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie).
It should not take too much intellectual investment for us to understand why
rocks do not grow flowers, fish do not fly, why we rarely tame lions or why we
should not cut all trees; why we do not all drive on the left or right side of
the road as a matter of discretion, why we are not all presidents and why even
spiritually we manifest different results and expressions. There is expected to
be an inalienable stratification of different forms of divine order and
sometimes the challenges we face relate to how we properly appropriate them.
When
religious leaders run to state machinery to regulate expressions or emphases
they consider different from theirs, or if the state coffers are relieved to
facilitate religious causes outside proper Constitutional quotas and processes
one of two parties might have some clarification to make. Then again, it takes
two to tango.
By
Matsiko Godwin Muhwezi
Corporate
Lawyer & Lecturer
*first
published on matsikogdwin.blospot.com ©
