The Entanglement of The Church with Politics in Kenya and Beyond
The intertwining of the church and politics is a global phenomenon, but in Kenya and other nations with strong religious identities, this entanglement has profound implications for electoral processes and citizen decision-making. In Kenya, where approximately 85.5% of the population identifies as Christian and 11% as Muslim, churches wield significant social and political influence. This article examines the entanglement of churches with politics in Kenya, drawing parallels with examples from Nigeria, the United States, and Brazil.
Michel Foucault’s concept of power and Hannah Arendt’s reflections on authority it explores how churches shape electoral decisions, often exploiting congregants’ trust, and the consequences for democratic processes. Specific examples highlight how religious leaders endorse candidates, mobilize voters, and sometimes perpetuate fear or division, ultimately affecting citizens’ autonomy and the integrity of elections.
Power, Authority, and Exploitation
Michel Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power provides a lens to understand how churches, as institutions, exert influence over congregants’ political choices. Foucault describes power as diffuse, operating through networks of institutions that shape behavior via surveillance, norms, and discourse. In churches, this manifests as sermons, endorsements, or warnings that frame political choices as moral imperatives, subtly coercing congregants to align with leadership preferences.
Hannah Arendt’s distinction between authority and power further clarifies this dynamic: Authority stems from trust and persuasion, not coercion, but when churches exploit their spiritual authority to enforce political allegiance, they blur the line into manipulative power. This exploitation undermines Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which demands treating individuals as ends, not means here, congregants become tools for political agendas rather than autonomous agents.
Churches as Political Battlegrounds
In Kenya, churches have long been entangled with politics, a relationship intensified by the country’s Christian majority and historical precedents. The 2019 census underscores Kenya’s religious landscape: 33% non-evangelical Protestants, 21% Roman Catholics, and 32% other Christian denominations, including evangelicals and Pentecostals. This demographic weight makes churches prime platforms for political mobilization.
Historical Context and Political Patronage
The entanglement traces back to Kenya’s post-independence era. During President Daniel arap Moi’s regime (1978–2002), churches were both allies and adversaries. Moi, a devout Christian, capitalized on religious fervor by attending services and donating generously, securing evangelical support while mainline churches, like the Anglican and Catholic denominations, opposed his authoritarian one-party state. For example, Archbishop David Gitari of the Anglican Church publicly condemned land-grabbing by Moi’s allies in the 1980s, using the pulpit to challenge political corruption.
This dynamic evolved under subsequent leaders. President William Ruto, elected in 2022, exemplifies the modern fusion of faith and politics. Ruto, an evangelical Christian, built his campaign on religious rhetoric, attending services across denominations and framing his candidacy as divinely ordained.
His Kenya Kwanza coalition signed a pact with the Association of Pentecostal and Evangelical Clergy of Kenya (APECK) in May 2022, promising to promote church interests in exchange for electoral support. Televangelist Mark Kariuki, a Ruto ally, led prayers at State House to “purify” it, signaling the blurring of church-state boundaries.
Such alliances raise concerns about secularism, as noted by scholar Damaris Parsitau, who warns that evangelical influence threatens progressive policies on issues like abortion and LGBT rights.
Electoral Implications
Churches in Kenya play a significant role in shaping electoral decisions through various mechanisms. One prominent method is through endorsements and sermons.
Pastors often use their platforms to endorse specific candidates, presenting their support as divinely inspired. For instance, during Ruto’s campaign, evangelical leaders rallied Kenya’s predominantly Christian electorate, which constitutes 80% of the population, by emphasizing his “born-again” credentials. This approach creates a sense of moral obligation among congregants to align their votes with these endorsements, often at the expense of critically evaluating the candidates’ policies.
Financial incentives also play a crucial role in this dynamic. Politicians frequently make substantial donations to churches, sometimes delivered in “shoulder bags” during services, in exchange for access to the pulpit. A notable example from 2025 involved a Nairobi church receiving a 20 million Kenyan shilling donation from Ruto, which sparked protests from youth questioning the entanglement of church and state. These financial transactions, often untaxed, contribute to the perception of churches as “billion shilling industries” complicit in political corruption.
Fear and coercion are additional tools employed by some churches to influence voters. Certain pastors instill fear of spiritual consequences for opposing endorsed candidates, warning congregants that voting against “God’s chosen” could invite divine disfavor. This tactic exploits the faith of believers and mirrors Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, where the fear of judgment whether spiritual or social restricts free choice.
Lastly, ethnic and political polarization is a significant factor in Kenya’s elections, with churches sometimes reinforcing tribal divisions. In the 2007 election, some religious leaders exacerbated ethnic tensions, contributing to post-election violence that resulted in 1,500 deaths. While the 2013 election saw churches promoting unity to prevent a recurrence of such violence, subtle biases along ethnic lines continue to persist within religious institutions.
Citizen Impact
The intertwining of churches and politics in Kenya has a range of effects on its citizens, some of which are eyebrow-raising, to say the least.
First, there’s the erosion of autonomy. When churches present voting as a spiritual duty, congregants often feel compelled to prioritize loyalty over policy analysis. It’s like Kantian autonomy took a backseat to divine endorsements.
A 2021 study even found that Kenyan churchgoers frequently align with pastors’ recommendations, even when the candidates’ track records seem to contradict Christian values. It’s as if critical thinking gets swapped for blind faith literally.
Then there’s the corruption and mistrust. Financial ties between politicians and churches have bred a healthy dose of cynicism among the public. Social media posts lament the church’s role as an “enabler of political repression,” reflecting widespread frustration with clergy who seem to prioritize patronage over ethics. It’s hard to keep the faith when the pulpit starts looking like a cash register.
Polarization is another thorny issue. Church endorsements can deepen ethnic and political divides, as was painfully evident in 2007 when religious rhetoric exacerbated post-election violence. It’s as if the sermons came with a side of tribal tension, leaving the nation grappling with the fallout.
Finally, there’s pushback and reform. The 2021 decision by the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK) to ban politicians from pulpits was a bold move against exploitation. Congregants like Eunice Waweru welcomed the change, saying it helped refocus on spiritual matters.
But not everyone was on board some evangelical churches resisted, seemingly valuing political funds over the sanctity of their sermons. It’s a tug-of-war between divine devotion and earthly donations.
Global Comparisons: Nigeria, the United States, and Brazil
The entanglement of churches with politics is not unique to Kenya. Examples from Nigeria, the United States, and Brazil illustrate similar patterns and implications.
Nigeria: Prosperity Gospel and Political Influence
Nigeria, with a roughly equal Christian-Muslim population, sees churches, particularly Pentecostal megachurches, wield electoral influence. Pastors like Enoch Adeboye of the Redeemed Christian Church of God command millions of followers, making their endorsements pivotal. In the 2015 election, former President Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian, courted Pentecostal leaders, donating funds and attending services.
However, some pastors, like Tunde Bakare, ran for office themselves, blurring church-state lines. The prosperity gospel emphasizing wealth as divine favor encourages congregants to support candidates promising economic uplift, often overlooking corruption. This mirrors Kenya’s evangelical alliances, with citizens’ votes swayed by spiritual promises rather than policy substance, reducing electoral accountability.
United States: Evangelicals and Partisan Politics
In the U.S., evangelical churches have shaped elections since the 1980s, with leaders like Jerry Falwell Sr. mobilizing voters for the Republican Party. In 2020, 80% of white evangelicals supported Donald Trump, influenced by pastors framing him as a defender of Christian values against abortion and secularism. Megachurches like Elevation Church in North Carolina host voter drives, subtly endorsing conservative candidates through “biblical values” rhetoric.
This creates a Foucaultian disciplinary effect, where congregants feel morally bound to vote Republican, limiting independent judgment. The implication is a polarized electorate, with religious identity trumping policy debate, similar to Kenya’s ethnic-religious voting blocs.
Evangelical Rise and Bolsonaro’s Ascendancy
Brazil’s evangelical churches, representing 30% of the population, were instrumental in Jair Bolsonaro’s 2018 presidential victory. Pastors like Silas Malafaia of the Assemblies of God endorsed Bolsonaro, leveraging television networks and mega-churches to mobilize voters. Sermons framed Bolsonaro as a bulwark against socialism and moral decay, appealing to conservative congregants.
This mirrors Ruto’s divine rhetoric in Kenya. The consequence was a divided electorate, with evangelicals prioritizing religious identity over economic or environmental policies, leading to polarized governance. Congregants faced social pressure to conform, echoing Kenya’s fear-based compliance.
Implications for Electorate Decisions
Church-political entanglements have far-reaching implications for electorate decisions, often blending divine authority with earthly politics in ways that leave voters questioning their choices.
First, there’s the manipulation of trust. Churches wield their spiritual authority to sway votes, turning Arendt’s concept of authority into a tool of coercion. In Kenya, Ruto’s portrayal as “David,” God’s anointed, shielded his policies from scrutiny. Similarly, in Brazil, Bolsonaro’s evangelical backing cast him as a divine protector, sidelining rational debate. It’s as if faith became a shortcut to bypass critical thinking.
Next, there’s the erosion of secular democracy. When churches align with candidates, they chip away at the separation of church and state. In Kenya, evangelical influence has shaped anti-abortion and anti-LGBT legislation, while in the U.S., evangelical lobbying for conservative judges skews judicial impartiality. It’s democracy with a side of divine intervention, whether you asked for it or not.
Fear and exclusion also play a role. Congregants often face ostracism for dissenting from church-endorsed candidates. In Kenya, the fear of expulsion looms large, while in Nigeria, prosperity gospel churches shun members who question political alignments. It’s a stark reminder that free choice isn’t always free when faith is weaponized.
Polarization and violence are yet another consequence. Religious endorsements can deepen divisions, as seen in Kenya’s 2007 post-election violence or Brazil’s polarized 2018 election. In the U.S., evangelical rhetoric fuels culture wars, alienating moderate voters. It’s like a sermon that ends with, “Choose a side or else.”
Finally, accountability challenges arise. Politicians backed by churches often escape scrutiny, as congregants prioritize spiritual loyalty. In Kenya, Ruto’s tax hikes initially faced muted criticism from churches due to prior alliances, until public protests forced a shift. It’s a case of divine loyalty meeting earthly consequences.
And yet, after all this, voters often find themselves grumbling about the very leaders they elected, lamenting, “But they were chosen by God!” It’s a divine comedy, where the punchline is always on the electorate.
Reclaiming Democratic Agency
The entanglement of churches with politics in Kenya, Nigeria, the U.S., and Brazil reveals a troubling pattern: spiritual authority is weaponized to shape electoral outcomes, often at the expense of congregants’ autonomy and democratic integrity.
Foucault’s disciplinary power illuminates how churches, through endorsements and fear, constrain free choice, while Arendt’s authority warns against the misuse of trust. Kant’s ethical imperative calls for treating citizens as ends, not means a principle violated when churches exploit faith for political gain.
For citizens, the path forward lies in critical awareness.
In Kenya, the NCCK’s pulpit ban and youth protests signal a demand for ethical reform. Christians must question leaders who prioritize patronage over principle, seeking communities that foster dialogue, not dogma.
Globally, voters should evaluate candidates on policies, not divine endorsements, reclaiming the agency to shape their nations’ futures. The pulpit must remain a place of moral reflection, not a platform for political manipulation.
