Constitutional reform & christianity in Zimbabwe

By Sanderson N Makombe 

Is Christianity the most practised religion in Zimbabwe? If so, does that make Zimbabwe a Christian nation? Should Zimbabwe be declared a Christian nation in the new constitution or should any other religion be adopted as a state religion?

 The impetus to contribute on this topic came when i was going through the Kariba draft constitution. So far it is the only constitutional document that has a clause asserting a religious belief. Both the NCA and the Chidyausiku draft constitutions have no clauses linking the state to a particular religion directly or indirectly.

The preamble to the Kariba draft opens by stating ‘We acknowledge the supremacy of the Lord’. Inevitably such a constitutional provision is bound to raise controversy and is subject to different legal and theological interpretations and implications. In this discussion the word Lord is applied as referring to the Christian God.

The current Zimbabwean constitution does not proclaim ‘the supremacy of the lord’ anywhere; neither does it attempt to link a particular religion to the state of Zimbabwe. Reference to God is found only in the Oath of loyalty with the words ‘So help me God’. The oath is taken by senior public officials when taking office and is only an oath of allegiance.

It is not compulsory to pronounce ‘So help me God’ as it is only taken in affirmation. However aspects of the Christian religion are evident in the sphere of Zimbabwean public life. In our courts of law before giving evidence witnesses are required to swear by the Bible the truthness of their account. Prominent Christian festivals, Easter and Christmas, are public holidays in Zimbabwe, even though the holidays are better known for social pleasure than the celebration of a religious event.

In most schools Bible Knowledge has been a common subject nationwide but its importance has been greatly reduced, with some schools actually scrapping it. On most funeral occasions church leaders preside over the burial of the deceased, just as most do on weddings and marriages.

Archbishop Chakaipa presided over President Mugabe’s first inaugural as Prime Minister in 1980 as well as over his wedding to Grace Marufu in 1997.However the absence of official prayers and other religious procedures and leadership at any official government function or meetings points to the fact that religion is not integral to the function of the establishment.

Historical facts point to the fact that before the arrival of the colonialists, present day Zimbabwe practised some form of traditional worshipping, with emphasis on spirit mediums. Christianity was brought about by early missionaries. There is not much written about the role played by main wing Christian establishments during Zimbabwe’s struggle for indepedence.

In contrast, reference is made of the role of spirit mediums, notably Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi, and roles played by traditional chiefs like Chief Rekai Tangwena.This does not mean though that religious leaders did not offer any form of support leading to the birth of Zimbabwe.Abel Muzorewa, Rev Ndabaningi Sithole were appointed to lead the struggle when nationalist leaders were incarcarated.

Mugabe himself benefited through the works of Fathers Dieter Scholz,Emmanuel Ribero and Sister Mary Acquina who were sympathetic to the nationalist causes. They would eventually also help him to hide and later cross into Mozambique.

Answering the first question in my introduction, it could be very true that Christianity is the dominant religion in Zimbabwe. That fact however does not in itself qualify Zimbabwe as a Christian nation. Neither does the inclusion of the proclamation of the supremacy of the Lord in the Kariba draft. To have a nation founded in a particular religion means that particular religion is the primary and probably the sole basis upon which a national government exists and is structured.

It also recognises that there is a higher law than man made law and that law is God’s law, or Biblical Law, which is recognised as supreme in that republic. Christianity becomes the life and soul of the nation, its practise and its existence. To be a Christian is not just by declaration, it is also by deeds. 2 Chronicles 7;14 says ‘If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray and seek my face and turn way from their wicked ways, I will forgive their sin and heal their land’.

There is a reward promised by God for a nation that identifies itself with him. Psalm 33; 12 states ‘Blessed is a nation whose God is the Lord’. It is evidently clear that it is not the constitutional provision that makes a nation Christian, neither the empirical numbers of a practising Christianity.

A nation where a majority statistically are Christians and are in power seeking to emblemish Christian beliefs with government policy can aptly be described as a Christian democracy. However this description does not describe its form of government. Alternative to Christian democracy could be establishment of a theocracy, that is, a nation headed by GOD. It is evidenced that a theocracy is more likely to be autocratic than democratic. Probably the nearest of the existence of such a form cite ancient Israel as the epitome of a theocracy.

There is biblical evidence that Israel as a nation was created by God and he excised civil rule over it through his anointed prophets Exodus 24.8. God had a contract with Israel and Psalm 105 vs. 8-10 states ‘he remembers his covenant forever…….the covenant God made with  Abraham and his oath to Isaac and confirmed to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.’ Luke 1; vs. 31-33 makes it clear that only Jesus has the present right to rule as king of Israel as its national civil head concluding   ‘he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end’.

There were times that the people of Israel actually rebelled against God’s rule over them and God was well aware of that. In Samuel 8; 7 it is written ‘and the Lord said to Samuel ‘heed the voices of the people in all they say to you: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them’. In a theocracy like ancient Israel the nation had a legally prescribed religious faith and its civil law prescribed what people must believe about God.

In a theocracy, civil punishments are meted out for religious offences, and the national welfare is founded on the maintenance and preservation, or avoidance of a particular faith. Civil privileges are accorded to those who profess the specific religion. No wonder in Zambia just after its proclamation a minister banned non Christians from appearing on national television.

The covenant that Israel has by God is not evident in any other society today and no nation can claim that God rules over its national affairs as its personal civil head of state like in ancient Israel before the monarch.

The nearest we have currently to a theocracy is the Islamic State of Iran. Iran might seem a secular democracy but is not. Power does not reside in the elected officials of the government. The Guardian Council appointed by the Ayatollahs are the supreme leaders. The Council can overturn any law it deems contrary to Islamic laws and tradition. The president is not the most powerful person in Iran; it is the Grand Ayatollah, who remains in charge of the military and the works of the Council.

The legal structure actually requires leadership of the government to be muslim.Al Quran and associated Muslim traditions play the role of constitution for the state-the final authority on what is permitted or forbidden. Thus religion is at the cornerstone of the establishments’ life and soul. Civil liberties like sexual preferences, freedom of speech, expression, media, are all interpreted in strict adherence to Islamic law and that law is supreme.

 In June 2007 Barack Obama said of the USA ‘Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non believers’. Suffice to say, the USA constitution is secular. There is no mention of God or Christianity. Even the Presidential oath does not contain the phrase So Help Me God.

However facets of the Christian faith are very evident in the founding of the USA.Sunday is still observed as a Christian Sabbath, the Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench and the USA coins still proclaim the motto In God We Trust. Of greater significance is the declaration by President Eisenhower that ‘Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life.

Recognition of the supreme being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be’. Independent of an express declaration, does that make the USA a Christian nation? Probably not.

In Zambia on 29 December 1991 Frederick Chiluba officially declared the country a Christian nation at State House. The constitution was duly amended in May 1996 declaring the republic a Christian nation, at the same time upholding the right of every citizen to enjoy freedom of conscience or religion. The same president was later arraigned before the courts for embezzlement of government coffers. The extend of his lavishness was aptly evidenced by his contract with a supplier to furnish him with personalised footware.Nothing he ever did exemplified Christian beliefs of self sacrifice, honesty, truthfulness and integrity.

The legal significance of declaring a nation a Christian nation are vast. One of the dilemna faced is what happens when a non Christian is elected as president? Or does that imply practising Christianity is a requisite for running for office?  A president is elected to uphold the constitution, that very constitution which could potentially be discriminatory against his faith or lack of. The interplay of religious teachings and criminal law can be very controversial in an established theocracy.

Not every sin is a crime in the ordinary sense. Man made law generally prescribe what is a criminal conduct whereas the bible would prescribe what is a sin .Thus consensual sex by adults outside marriage is not a criminal offence but the same act is a sin according to the bible [fornication].In a society based on theocracy the act will be both a sin and a crime. At the same time homosexuality is a sin according to the bible and would therefore be outlawed in a theocracy.

At present homosexuality is not a crime in Zimbabwe though the practise of sodomy is. In a Christian theocracy that act will be outlawed. Blasphemy or any insult towards the state religion will in most cases be a crime, so are a host of other forbidden acts in the holy book. There will be a close relation between morality issues as prescribed by the religion and enforced by law as can be seen in the development of English common law, an aspect likely to cause discomfort in a democracy.

Another problem is how to accommodate a state religion with anti discrimination provisions in the Bill of Rights. Most human rights instruments contain the requirement that no one should be discriminated on the grounds of sex, race, tribe, colour and religion. The current Zimbabwean constitution has this on Section 23.No doubt then that an express provision for a particular faith could be interpreted as discriminatory.

 What is the essence of proclaiming God’s supremacy without actually intending to establish a state religion? Sceptics will also point out that the parties to the Kariba draft are not founded on Christian principles which makes the inclusion of the clause astonishing. If ‘Lord’ in that sense mean the Christian God, is that proclamation not discriminatory to other faiths? It is a fact that Zimbabwe is a multi faith society and there is a large populace of those who do not practise any religion at all.

Cynics will always argue that there is nothing more fatal in the world than religion and politics mixed together. Therefore to accommodate both in a constitutional clause is actually prescribing chaos and can actually breed fundamentalism.

There are those who hold the opinion that state and religion should always be separated. They argue religious leaders should remain impartial and apolitical for them to retain the respect of the nation. A pro active faith can be an effective voice of the oppressed and provide checks and balances on executive excesses. The danger lies when religious leaders of a particular state religion fail to stand on high moral ground because of the fear of upsetting their political friends, thereby diminishing their role play.

Ethiopia seems to have realised this fact despite its rich historical connections to both Muslim and Christian faith. Its constitution provides for the separation of religion and politics by article 11 which provides:

1. State and religion are separate.
2. There shall be no state religion.
3. The State shall not interfere in religious affairs and religion shall not interfere in state affairs.

Australia’s federal constitution on Section 116 provides ‘ The commonwealth shall not make any laws for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under commonwealth. This provision heavily borrows from the USA constitution 1st amendment Sec 116 which states ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise off’. This provision has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to require separation of church from state.

It is proposed here that similar provisions be adopted to clearly separate the state from the church expressly in the constitution and remain secular as it is now. 

The writer can be contacted at [email protected]

[newsletter]