Guide thy people, thus saith the Lord By Fr Deogratias Ekisa June 23, 2004
I am wondering about what motivated the government to turn around and declare that the Church âwas free to speak out and mobilise against the third termâ as reported in The Monitor of June 18. Could it be fear of the voters, the majority of whom are churchgoers? Could it be the fear of not making the Church and its leaders political martyrs? My hope is that the elements of reason in the government have finally prevailed. For this declaration is not a concession from the government, but merely a statement of an inherent constitutional right. But the governmentâs modified position is still full of bad reasoning. In the aforementioned article, the Minister of State for Information, Dr James Nsaba Buturo, is reported as saying that the government will not respond to positions taken by the Church on the issue. He said, âIf they choose to go that route [proposing positions contrary to the government one] they should know thereâs a price to pay in form of abuse, acrimony and polarisation.â Contrary to the common place saying that politics is a dirty game, politics can be a clean game. After all, politics is the management of the polis, the State. In the management of the State, there are bound to be different view points. In the economic arena, for example, those on the left prefer more government involvement in the provision of social services and in economic activities, while those on the right prefer that the government leave those fields to the private sector. Others prefer a middle ground. In most modern democracies, the people keep changing their minds about which position is best for them at a particular time. That is why one sees leftist governments taking over from rightist ones and vice versa. Politics becomes a dirty game, when the players are lacking ideas and have to resort to attacks on the person like some politicians in Uganda have done to those who propose different views. To-date I have not heard any serious discussion of Cardinal Emmanuel Wamalaâs position; but I have had lots of things about him and the Church, things not connected to the point at issue. Even given the immature politics in Uganda, one that is prone to becoming dirty, should the Church and its leaders shy away, just to save themselves from âabuse, acrimony and polarisation?â What is worse, receiving harsh treatment or seeing the government take a path that in the considered view of the Church has potentially disastrous consequences for the nation? The Church cannot shy away from its mission, just because the government threatens âabuse and acrimony.â The government has said that the church leaders who have spoken out on the term-limits issue are speaking as individuals. I partly agree. Unlike the government and some other organisations where the leaders are spokespersons for the members, in the mainstream churches, the leaders are not necessarily spokespersons for their flock. The leaders, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and after prayer and study of the Scriptures, speak the mind of God, to their flock and to the world. So the church teachingâs condemning abortion or murder would not change, even if all the Catholics in Uganda were to want those evils. In fact, sometimes, the flock do not follow the churchâs teaching, particularly regarding moral issues like extramarital and premarital sex, abortion etc. I would even concede that sometimes even some Church leaders, due to human frailty fail to live up to the teaching of the Church. All these aberrations do not take away from the truthfulness of the Church teaching on any issue for that matter. Regarding the issue of term-limits, after considering the wealth of wisdom in the Scriptures, in the history of the Church and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is the view of the three mainstream churches in Uganda, that the terms for a President be limited to two, as is in the constitution. This position is held with no other motive, but the preservation of the common good in Uganda. The government does not have to agree with this position, but they have to consider it. They should not dismiss the position out of hand and hurl abuse at the bishops for making a well-intentioned contribution. The minister suggested that because of the Churchâs involvement on this issue, âthey will lose the aura of impartiality associated with them as Church leaders.â I disagree. While the very teaching of something puts the Churchâs position on one side or the other of an issue, that is not necessarily partiality. Partiality would occur if the Churchâs teachings or positions always favoured one side in the political debate. In the case of Uganda, that is not true. Sometimes the Church differs with government, for example, on term-limits, on the conduct of the war with rebel leader Joseph Kony, on contraception, on capital punishment etc. But sometimes, for example, in condemning the atrocities of Kony, in providing education and health care (its promotion of the mass vaccination campaign), in the foreign debt-relief campaign, in socio-economic development programmes. The Church has a prophetic mission, telling it as it is, regardless of whom they agree with. The government does not have to worry about Church leaders becoming political activists. We have our own internal rules that keep us out of politics. Actually, it is this government that sometimes asks us to make exceptions to those rules by appointing some of our leaders to secular positions in governmental bodies. It is in the utmost interest of the Church to remain impartial and truthful. As we move forward in this political debate, let us proceed with decorum and respect for each otherâs position. Let us all leave out selfish interests and insincerity. Despite our disagreements, let us all work for the common good of Uganda. Fr Ekisa is attached to the Catholic Archdiocese of Tororo -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
