We have seen an evolution in church and state relations that should be alarming to anyone who cares about the separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is the principle that holds nations that adhere to this principle must protect religious institutions from state interference. Conversely, the principle operates to protect public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in deciding who holds public office.
Nowhere has this principle proven its reach and effectiveness in protecting both religious freedom and keeping religious zealots from taking over and controlling government than the United States. The principle is enshrined in the United States Constitution under what is known as the Establishment Clause. It is also one of the US constitutional principles. You will hardly find much disagreement between liberals and conservatives, for they know its value in safeguarding societal interests.
In Kenya, the framers of our Constitution adopted the separation of church and state principle and have enshrined it in our Constitution, albeit with a twist. While the US Constitution and the Establishment Clause, in particular, make it explicit that the United States is a secular nation that is not so clear in our Constitution.
Yes, our Constitution appears not to impose a state religion by protecting the freedom of religion, belief and conscience in Article 32; and promoting other freedoms such as freedom of expression in Article 33; freedom of the media in Article 34 and freedom of association in Article 36. And yes, any religious group, institution, or faith-based non-governmental organisation is allowed to register as a society.
However, the reality is Kenya is so predominantly Christian that any talk of separation of church and state is more theoretical than practical. According to government data from the 2019 census, 85.52 percent of Kenyans said they are Christians, 11 percent Muslim, and fewer than 2 percent Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, and those adhering to traditional, that is, Daoism, Buddhism, Shinto, animist religious beliefs.
One may question the accuracy of those numbers, but it cannot be argued that Kenya is a super-predominantly Christian nation.
That is not even the issue; the issue is to what extent is the country’s separation of church and state holding? More importantly, is the church doing what it has traditionally done to promote democracy and civil rights by protecting society from government overreach, dysfunction, corruption, bad governance, and ineptness?
The answer is a resounding ‘NO.’
To be sure, it is important to distinguish between the church’s holding the government’s feet to the fire in ensuring good governance, and seeking dominance in government over all other denominations and religious groups. The former is admirable and necessary, the latter not.
Since Kenya’s Independence, the church was the main critic and opponent of Presidents Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Arap Moi’s bad governance and abuse of human rights. During this era, the church was very critical of the rampant extrajudicial killings, corruption cases, pitting ethnic groups against each other, oath-taking, and election rigging.
However, the church’s involvement in ensuring good governance and promotion of democracy dwindled upon the ascension of President Mwai Kibaki. For instance, the National Council of Churches in Kenya and the Anglican Church of Kenya, which were at the forefront of finding fault with the previous regimes, suddenly relegated their religious duties to keeping leaders accountable, and basically went silent.
Someone took notice and said something had to be done about this, although turning the concept upside down! Then presidential candidate William Ruto so cleverly used the church to bolster his presidential bid that by the time his opponents woke up to his moves, it was too late.
I don’t harbour any doubts that the President holds his religious beliefs with a level of sincerity that passes muster. However, it would be prudent for the President to scale back the intertwining of the church and state lest it be seen as nothing but a ploy to seek and maintain power, which is antithetical to being a Christian.
Inviting one of the controversial so-called preachers who performs ‘miracles’ in stadiums, not in hospitals, the President is helping promote this off-shoot of Christianity, rather than steering clear and confining himself to his attendant religiosity.