What will the Church do?

The Roman Catholic Church is the most ubiquitous institution in Kenya, spreading its tentacles into every nook and cranny in our fair land. It rivals the Government of Kenya in reach and meets the needs of a sizable portion of the population, running schools, hospitals and other social institutions and playing the role of the state where the state has indeed failed. It is rivalled only by the Anglican Church, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Africa Inland Church in reach and influence. The men of the cloth, therefore, find themselves in an unenviable position: unelected opinion makers and leaders who hold the balance of peace in their hands.

In the run up to the 2007 General Elections, the church acquitted itself poorly, failing time and again to exhort peace and reconciliation among the political and chattering classes. Instead, it picked sides and was instrumental in fomenting the incivility that characterised the elections, and standing mute while the country burned. Indeed, because of their partisanship, men of the cloth and the institutions they headed were not spared the brunt of the violence, with the burning of a church in Kiambaa, Eldoret as the most extreme manifestation of the odium heaped upon the church. During the 2010 Referendum, the church once again picked sides, but this time round it studiously refused to be identified with a political party or a political ideology, instead fashioning its opposition to the Proposed Constitution along values lines. It is a testament to changes in the body politic that the men of the cloth accepted the results of the Referendum without too much sore-loser whingeing.

What is notable about the 2010 Referendum is that although the so-called mainstream churches played their role in opposing the Proposed Constitution, it is the leadership of the evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Kenya who were in the leadership position, setting the pace for the debate surrounding the draft and setting the tone for the millions of Kenyan Christians who listened to them. In pulpits across the nation, the evangelists and Pentecostals demonstrated that they were capable of mobilising public opinion on a large scale and that they could sustain the debate well after every one else had given up. Moses Akaranga in the Ninth Parliament and Margaret Wanjiru in the Tenth are manifestations of the growing clout of the evangelical bishops and we would be well advised to keep an eye on them in the future.

The role of the church in the forthcoming general elections cannot be gainsaid; they must and shall play a role in determining whether we have peaceful elections or not. They will also play a role in assisting the public in choosing leaders, whether they do so for their own selfish ends or not. The Constitution separates church and state but does not separate church and politics and the politics of the men of the cloth will be revealed when the expected ethnic mobilisation of the people commences in earnest as soon as the campaigns are officially launched. The signs, though, are discouraging and dispiriting.

The presidential hopefuls among the Ocampo Six, prior to their date at The Hague this past month spent much of their time prior to their departure at 'prayer' and 'peace' rallies, presided over by men of the cloth. It seemed as if a section of the church was supporting the cause of the PEV suspects over the rights of the victims of the violence. At no point during these rallies did the bishops present spare a thought for the thousands that lost their lives and the hundreds of thousands who were chased from their homes or suffered unimaginable cruelty at the hands of men and women they had called friends and neighbours for decades. It is a strange sight to see preachers of the word ignoring the plight of millions of their congregants at the altar of political expediency.

It is impossible to know how the men of God will acquit themselves in 2012, but they should remember that while their right to political participation is guaranteed they must also temper their political freedom with wisdom and humility. They should studiously avoid the mistakes of 2007 and instead, attempt to guide their congregations in making choices that will stand Kenya in good stead. However, if they have already taken ethnically-coloured political stances, they should be treated with the same contempt that we today reserve for the political classes. The choice is theirs and if they make the wrong ones, they deserve the opprobrium of all right thinking Kenyans.