Bill 7 ADVANCES RIVALRY BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SDA – Given Mutinta

By Given Mutinta

Bill 7 ADVANCES RIVALRY BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SDA

The events surrounding the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill 7 under President Hakainde Hichilema has revealed a troubling evolution in this dynamic, especially when contrasted with the reception of the controversial Constitution Amendment Bill 10 under the Patriotic Front (PF) of President Edgar Lungu.

The stark divergence in presidential posture, coupled with the aggressive rhetoric from some of the United Party for National Development (UPND)’s supporters, have shown that political expediency is now overriding established norms of interfaith respect, potentially fracturing the nation along religious or denominational lines.

The handling of constitutional amendment bills by successive administrations provides a clear illustration of political opportunism concerning religious advice. During the tenure of President Lungu, the Catholic Church publicly denounced Bill 10, citing concerns over its potential to undermine democratic principles. At that time, the current President Hichilema, then in opposition, lauded the Catholic Bishops for their principled guidance, which many credit with contributing to the Bill’s eventual collapse in Parliament. This endorsement positioned the Catholic Church as a vital moral compass in national discourse.

However, the script dramatically reversed with the introduction of Bill 7 under President Hichilema.

When the Catholic Bishops offered similar cautionary advice regarding Bill 7, the response from the Presidency was markedly different. Instead of valuing the guidance, reports indicate intimidation, with the Head of State threatening those who opposed the Bill.

This abrupt change from praising religious counsel to penalizing it exposes a selective appreciation for institutional advice, contingent entirely upon whether that advice aligns with the ruling party’s immediate political agenda.

Perhaps the most alarming development is the subsequent behaviour of some of President Hichilema’s vocal supporters who sometimes come out as radicals.

While supporters of Lungu’s regime generally respected the Catholic Church’s authority even in disagreement on Bill 10, certain factions supporting President Hichilema have engaged in direct, aggressive insults against the Catholic Church following their critique of Bill 7.

A quick systematic review of the top ten news Facebook pages in Zambia and top ten socialite Facebook pages reveals that when the Catholic Church (Priests and Bishops) says something about Bill 7, the reaction of some readers frequently manifests specific, biblically derived, and often derogatory labels such as The Beast, The Church of Sin, The Antichrist, The Child Molesters, The Apostate Church, The Jesuits, and Babylon.

This realisation raised serious questions about the motivations behind these attacks.

A significant observation is that President Hichilema belongs to the Seventh day Adventist (SDA) faith, and many of his vehement online defenders used these biblically derived random insults which are integral components of Seventh-day Adventist covenant theology and prophetic understanding. These terms they are using function to demarcate clear theological boundaries, reinforcing the Adventist self-identity as the remnant church upholding biblical truth against a powerful, historically dominant, and theologically compromised institution.

This correlation suggests that the opportunity presented by political disagreement has been seized by some to advance long-standing, though usually dormant, denominational rivalry between the Catholic Church and the SDA community.

This shift indicates that political allegiance under the current administration is unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally, manifesting as religious or denominational factionalism. Where political opposition previously operated within a framework that generally respected religious unity, the current climate appears to be permitting, or even encouraging, the weaponization of religious identity against critics.

Such an environment validates the argument that the divisiveness currently felt at political and tribal levels is now permeating the religious sphere.

The use of religious identity as a tool for political mobilization or silencing dissent is profoundly dangerous for a nation striving for unity.

The Catholic Church, with its broad national footprint, acts as a crucial mediator in Zambian society. When its guidance is publicly scorned and its members attacked by partisan groups affiliated with the ruling party, the social fabric is strained.

The critique that Bill 7 is divisive is no longer confined to constitutional interpretation; it extends to the realm of social cohesion. If citizens perceive that their loyalty to a political leader is conditional on their religious affiliation, or that religious advice will be met with partisan aggression from co-religionists of the President, the potential for sustained denominational conflict becomes a tangible threat to national stability.

This phenomenon demonstrates that President Hichilema’s leadership, despite promising unity, is inadvertently fostering deeper cleavages.

The consistency of the Catholic Church’s stance across two administrations highlights their commitment to principle, while the inconsistency of the Presidential response highlights the fragility of political ethics when facing institutional scrutiny.

Thus, transition from respecting Catholic guidance on Bill 10 to intimidating them over Bill 7, accompanied by the rise of religiously charged insults from certain segments of the ruling party’s base, signals a dangerous descent into governance driven by factional interests.

The observation that this animosity seems linked to the President’s own religious background underscores the troubling fusion of personal identity and national policy. For Zambia to avoid deepening societal fractures, the leadership must immediately curb the religious intolerance displayed by its supporters and reaffirm a commitment to valuing counsel from all faith traditions, irrespective of political convenience or underlying denominational tensions.