Has TEC blurred the line between religion and politics?

That issue has surged to prominence again, sparked by a statement from the Tanzania Episcopal Conference (TEC) opposing the DP World deal. That statement has reignited a debate that the government wished was cooling down, thus sending its strategists back to the drawing board. While critics have launched passionate rebuttals, accusing TEC of mixing religion with politics, others have defended its move. The situation has highlighted the intricate interplay between faith and politics.

But why do people think that TEC has mixed religion with politics? And what does “mixing religion with politics” really mean?

The phrase finds its roots in Europe after the Protestant Reformation caused religious conflict and political fragmentation. This period of warfare led people to recognise that peace would be impossible without religious tolerance. But it wasn’t until the French and American revolutions that the idea gained traction and became a cornerstone of modern political thought.

During the founding of America, there were concerns from some of the refugees that had fled religious strife in Europe about their status in the newfound nation. Although religious freedom was already enshrined in the American Constitution, it was in 1802, in response to a question from a church group, that Thomas Jefferson delivered an influential articulation of the principle of separating church and state.

Jefferson wrote (I paraphrase for simplicity): “Religion is a personal matter between an individual and God, and people don’t owe an explanation to anyone else for their faith. I respect the decision of the American people, which stated that the government should not create any laws favouring one religion or hindering people from practising their beliefs. This decision effectively creates a wall of separation between Church and State.”

That is the origin of that phrase – “separation between church and state”. It is enlightening to observe how the principle works out in practice, particularly when examining instances where it is violated.

Governments violate this principle when they favour a specific religion, like providing support to religious organisations, intervening in religious leadership selection, or legislating based on religious doctrine. Similarly, mandating specific educational requirements for religious leaders, regardless of the intention, constitutes a breach of the principle, thus compromising government neutrality and potentially encroaching upon individual rights.

Religions can exceed their bounds when they endorse political candidates, lobby the government to shape policies, and discriminate against individuals based on religious convictions. They also violate the principle when they harbour theocratic ambitions or reject secular laws. Such interventions challenge the idea of separation of church and state, which is central to modern democratic societies.

It should be noted that the separation of religion and state isn’t purposed at silencing religious individuals in public debates but to foster their participation without discrimination. The separation of religion and state does not mean that believers should be denied their political and social rights.

Considering that, TEC has the right to engage in public discussions on any issue, regardless of the faith of those involved. Given that TEC’s argument doesn’t hinge on the faith of those involved, which would indeed be inappropriate and disturbing, TEC has a responsibility to speak out on issues that safeguard the interests of their followers and the nation. That right cannot be taken from them on account of their faith.

This is not new. TEC has been doing this for decades. In 2021, when people were dying of Covid while the government was in its denialist state, TEC issued a statement that helped ease the situation in the country. In 2017, when Magufuli was tightening political space, TEC issued a statement to voice its concern about that trend.

Two years ago, Khalifa Said, an editor at the Chanzo Foundation, wrote that TEC’s decision to speak out on the Covid issue was in keeping with “its long and glorious history of intervening in matters of national importance”. He argued that TEC is the only institution in Tanzania that can “take the bull by the horns in the interests of the people”.

I agree with Khalifa that TEC is a voice of reason and a powerful mediator between the government and the people in Tanzania. TEC’s role in reminding those in power of ethical considerations is indispensable for guiding the nation on the right path. We may disagree with TEC’s directives, but it is futile to attempt to silence them by invoking the argument that they are “mixing religion with politics”.

That won’t work on TEC. They know better.