Maybe my perspective is a bit one-sided, but I think it is possible to treat faith-based organizations as organizations of social movements - that means, they are perfectly legitimated and capable to speak for their interest group and members. As social movements work within certain structures, they will try to be perceived as representatives for a big part of the population - so, they can speak for "the people". Only that those "people" not necessarily have to agree, that is why there is usually a plurality of different social movements and organizations - and of course, of different faith-based organizations.

I am looking at similar issues in Russia where the Orthodox church claims quite regularly that it was indeed speaking for the people. To an extent, the available statistics corroborate this claim: some 80% of the Russian population say that they are Orthodox and when pollsters try to gauge the popularity of certain politicians and/or public figures the Patriarch of the Orthodox church fares quite well. Not least because of the Soviet/atheist legacy in Russia the topic of how much influence the church should have on the government and the legislative process is hotly debated both inside and outside of Russia.

In this, I have found a comment by a fellow academic very useful: s/he stated that if the church does indeed speak for the people this would be reflected in public opinion and public opinion, in turn, would have an impact on government policy (even in undemocratic countries like Russia). The point here was that the church does not need institutionalised ties to the government in order to influence it, but that the more informal connection through public opinion would be enough.

I personally would add that, at least in the Russian case, the church hierarchy likes to put a certain spin on what it perceives as the will of the people and that this spin tends to serve the church's institutional interests. Russian society is relatively diverse and I don't think that the church leadership does not speak for all social groups and not even the majority. It is, however, important here to the church (or any faith-based organisation) is larger than its hierarchy and that it can be split into several wings.

I agree with Prof. Altmann that religious groups can speak on behalf of their members as human rights clearly advance religious concerns over the dignity and worth of the individual and the obligations of the state to its citizens. Moreover, I would argue that in a pluralist society, religious voices have particular value in promoting a religiously grounded discussion of human rights values among people of faith who are likely to find religious arguments more persuasive than secular arguements. As I have regularly argued, if a society is going to be truly pluralist, then it must promote a public square in which a wide range of values based conversations are welcomed even though they might not be persuasive to all listeners.

That said, just because a group is religious does not exempt it from accusations of self interest or pure power politics. I would agree that based on a number of laws enacted with the support of the Orthodox Church in Russia, that the Orthodox church has clearly overstepped the bounds of liberal morality by using its ties to the government to advance its own interests. While it is unsurprising that the church would try to "spin" its advocacy as being representative of the people, that clearly does not necessarily make it so. However, the best critic of that position is another person of faith -- either from one of the "wings" within that church or outside of it.

The Christian Association of Nigeria and the Muslim Council appear to be the two most vocal groups purporting to speak for Christians and Muslims respectively. Both organizations do not represent any single doctrinal majority. They function as such only because the government fraternizes with them.

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (current Governor of Nigeria's Central Bank) once acknowledged the impact of small vocal groups in Northern Nigeria in advancing the cause of codifying Islamic Criminal law in parts of the country. Given that Nigeria does not claim to be a secular state, are FBOs justified in pursuing sectional agendas?

Faith based organizations...? Faith in what? i assume faith in God, whomever an individual considers God to be.

No religious institution has the right to speak for me if their faith is not defined by human rights.

Property does not have rights. Corporations do not have rights. Governments do not have rights. Only real human beings have rights. Rights to Live privately and unencumbered by others, to pursue our destinies as assigned by God.

I have yet to find a religious organization that speaks for the people. Or a government that respects the peoples rights.

Aminu,

You seem to be asking more than just one question. Your premise is abit too wide; (any agenda). However, to attempt an answer; faith based organisations constitute part of the civil society which also constitute part of constituent power. And no liberal democracy is complete with an exclusion of the civil society.

In Nigeria and most of Western Africa, civil society organisations are completely excluded from the state. In Eastern and Southern Africa, the story is different and the civil society of which faith based organisations are a part are very much involved.

Faith based organisations can speak for people within a plural society without necessarily pursuing a religious agenda. They can hold those in power to some standards of accountability in isolation of their religious agenda.

I think there should be a demarcation between holding governments to standards of accountability and pursuing a religious agenda. Pursuing the former entails speaking on behalf of everyone for the common good. But the latter can only go as far as satisfying those who ascribe to the groups practices.

Dear Gordon Dim,

Much as I may wish to acknowledge 'an agenda', I must hold back. But suffice it to say my inquiry actually wishes to draw out comments that can explain if indeed faith based organisations can "speak for he people within a plural society without necessarily pursuing a religious agenda" as you so graciously pin it down.

I would really appreciate your take on how you reached the conclusion that "in Nigeria and most of Western Africa, civil society organisations are completely excluded from the state. In Eastern and Southern Africa, the story is different and the civil society of which faith based organisations are a part are very much involved." How?

Bello, AA

Hello Bello, AA

Perhaps you may want to read the following:

1) Power in Africa: An essay in Political interpretation. By Patrick Chabal. Chabal says so generally about Africa.

2) Sara Dorman; Professor of Political Science and African studies at Edinburgh (a South African) disagrees with Chabal in her Appreciation of "Patrick Chabal: An Appreciation?". She dismisses Chabal on Eastern and Southern Africa but fails on Western Africa.

3) Emmanuel Vudo's ‘Civil Society and the Search for Development Alternatives in Cameroon’ is in line with Chabal's view, albeit only limited to Cameroon, but that is West Africa also.

4) You may also consider reading "The Two faces of the Civil Society: NGOs and Politics in Africa" by Ndegwe.

All the above resources are available online.

From the above, I draw my conclusion, but will also like to know if It doesn't hold true for Nigeria.

Great. Will do!

"In Nigeria and most of Western Africa, civil society organisations are completely excluded from the state". Gordon, what do you mean by 'excluded'? That they do not form part of the government, or the governance?

Well, in Ghana, as in South Africa in particular, civil society that includes faith-based groups are significant part of governance. The Catholic Church in general, and in particular their mouthpiece paper The Catholic Standard has been outspoken and mostly critical of governments decades back, even in military regimes, all perceptively on behalf of the voiceless.

Indeed the Christian Council of Ghana, and the Ghana Pentecostal Council, all faith-based groups were fulcrum components in the Ghana Peace Council that worked among others to ensure free and fair, and peaceful elections in Ghana. Individual clergymen often also wear political clothes underneath but covered by religion to pontificate religious political views. They are all, either as individuals or as group, I believe in the exercise of their political and civic rights as citizens. In that sense, I shall say they are part of the governance.

So, in Ghana, the story is not different from S/Africa as you generally sought to categorise most West African states.I cannot speak with respect to other countries but in Ghana, civil society, not excluding religious or faith-based groups have long time been very active in national and political governance. Some are indeed could be termed political appendages under the cloak of religion.

So, the question is, is their active participation in governance make them part of the state? I do not really mind whether they are part of the state or not, as long as they could influence governance positively particular for the poor and the vulnerable, and as long as they form a check on the usually extensive powers of the state.

Here we are. Still at the beginning. Maybe what must be done indeed is provide a definition of "the people". Should this definition within the context of my question be limited to the membership of faith based groups? Should it include all citizens?