I am a social conservative. That does not mean I agree with everything said by all entities that ascribe this label to themselves. Rather, I am one of many varieties within that broad philosophy. And broad it is; for reasons among which are the varying contexts in the different locations where social conservatives find themselves. We shall mostly concern ourselves with Uganda, in this piece.
That many Ugandans are something akin to social conservatives, in some sense, is clear. You may wonder why my statement is qualified and uncommitted in tagging the social conservative label.
Well, for starters, one gets the sense that many Ugandans did not arrive at their curation of social ideologies in a coherent philosophical way. It is almost as though most Ugandans started from the point of holding to handed-down morals, and always work backwards to provide a reasoning for conservativeness, each justification different in mode from the other. Secondly, a good number only profess conservative ideas, but do not really live out those values practically. In other words, Ugandans tend to be rather liberal in how they live.
Whatever there is to make of that, we will concern ourselves with what is professed. In the spirit of generosity, I will regard what they profess as their personal convictions. The main question I intend to contend with is what one is to do with their personal convictions in the context of governing a pluralistic society? This question is not only important for legislators and policy enactors, but also average social conservatives in any field. After all, the latter are partly responsible for the ideological climate that catalyzes the push for moralistic legislations.
Regarding our pluralism in Uganda, it will be taken to mean the existence of multiple faiths, non-faiths, social allegiances and ideologies among the Ugandan population. It could be taken other ways, but I anticipate no harm in taking this route. This definition necessarily negates any claimed notion of Uganda being a single-faith theocracy. It is worth noting that a discussion of this nature will inevitably contain observations about religious concepts. Rest assured, however, I would not indulge in denominational dissuasion or cheap provocation.
Additionally important to note for discussion's sake, Uganda is a semblance of a democracy. No debate is intended on that, hence the loose language.
In such a context, a social conservative has several options of how to deal with their personal convictions in the wider context of the society around them. Under ideal circumstances, we would only deal with the unproblematic ones, which we would put forward as suggestions. However, our trajectory is unideal. Therefore, I reckon it instructive to expose some unhealthy options and show the impracticability and, at times, the straight-out folly in applying them. Then, we will list out the healthy options. Here we go, first with the unideal:
In the wildest scenario, a fervent socially conservative group in the legislature might be tempted to develop theocratic aspirations and to act on them. Here, I mean the full package; policy-incentivized proselytization, law-driven crackdown on alternative faiths, and the like, with the aim of having a singular dominion of a particular faith, under which they would disseminate their convictions with ease. Does this sound cartoonish to you, respectable reader? Things of this sort always do until they have happened. And they've happened elsewhere, which would take another piece to highlight.
The obvious folly of theocratic aspirations in a democracy is that they can only be pursued by an end-justifies-the-means approach, which would mean a very likely breach of tenets in the very creeds one seeks to promote. Additionally, such measures risk disturbing the literal peace among the multiple faiths/non-faiths that exist in a setting like Uganda.
Another unwise application of personal convictions could be zealous legislators passing laws through what's called a theonomic approach. Theonomy is uniquely Christian, for the lack of a better expression. It is the rule of society by what adherents term as divine law, as stated in the Old Testament in the Bible. Though Uganda does not have an abundance of intellectually robust political theologians with intricate grand plans to "capture society", we have had politicians with semi-theonomic tendencies. It should be noted that not even real life theonomists, like Jeff Durbin in the USA, are bold enough to advocate for their system to the dot. He and his colleagues for example skirt around impossible-to-implement applications like advocating for parents to stone their disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Even then, they have advocated for some interesting laws. Back to Uganda's case, with the increase of comically moralistic and evidence-thin legislative suggestions from some circles, it is wise to be armed with a versatile response for when quasi-theonomic notions sprout among us.
Part of being armed is to know the demerits of such thought patterns. For one, theonomy oversteps personally held categories. Here is an example, an atheist Ugandan may agree with legal categories like "crime", but not a theological one like "sin" which a person-of-faith would additionally be likely to recognize. If the latter party is a policy enactor with theonomic tendencies, they may want to blur the line between "crime" & what they call "sin". After all, shouldn't I as a believer criminalize transgressions against an entity I regard as the greatest in existence (God), who himself is posited to be the Ultimate Judge? The problem is hypocrisy. We all instinctively know that not everything we consider unethical should be a crime. Most people would say lying is unethical. We all lie to people now & then. An easy lie we all tell is about our response to people we like when asked about how they look in certain outfits. Surely, we would all consider it ridiculous for that to be criminalized. But blurring lines between categories, some of which fellow members of our society have a right not to recognize, leads to similar ridiculousness, albeit on a different scale.
Another way to address theonomic/theocratic impulses in a pluralistic society like Uganda is to first resist the urge of attempting to "play on the same field" as the holder of such notions. For example, if it is pertaining to legislating sexual ethics according to a religious approach, it would be a dead end to try countering a social conservative of the devout variety using scripture. You might, for instance, say, "Wasn’t the book of Leviticus scrapped/superseded by the new deal as brought by Christ?" and they'll bring to you Romans 1:26-27 which is in the New Testament supporting the same sexual ethics as the Old Testament. Then you will say, "in any case, are the 613 Laws of the Old Testament still applicable in today’s contemporary society?" And they'll answer by referencing Colosians 2:16 saying the ceremonial laws were metaphors of the new testament, which as we've seen still upholds the same sexual ethics (Romans 1). The point is it is hard to corner one in their ideological field. It is better to simply state that you are not bound by their creed and therefore it should not be a tool for blanket legislations that affect your freedom of conscience and breach your/others' privacy. That is a better constructed response.
All that said, here are some recommendations for Ugandan social conservatives (like myself) on what to do with our personal convictions in the context of how a pluralistic society is governed. If you are not a legislator or policy enactor, firstly continue enjoying your freedom of conscience by holding to the ideology/creed/faith you're persuaded of, and being free in your outward expressions of it in as long as it doesn't impact another's freedom. That said, you need to be okay with the fact that creed bears no constitutional binding on those who don't subscribe to it. For we regard ourselves as a kind of democracy and not a theocracy. If you're a legislator, table or support laws that protect freedoms, penalize their breach, and protect vulnerable persons from physical, financial or sexual violations; the latter in cases of lack of consent and encounters with the underage. See to it that your legislative submissions aren't designed to operate in breach of established freedoms like the right to privacy.
That way, whether you are an average social conservative in a private field or one who is a lawmaker, you will live out your conviction/creed while practically respecting the pluralistic reality in which you exist.
Comments