A Discussion with Reverend Anthony Jami Sasaka, Interreligious Dialogue Coordinator for Chemchemi Ya Ukweli, and with Otieno Ombok, Consultant at Chemchemi and Executive Director at Bondo Institute for Development and Technology, Kenya

With: Antony Jami Sasaka Berkley Center Profile

June 29, 2010

Background: As part of the Religion, Conflict, and Peace building Fellowship, Consuelo Amat interviewed Reverend Anthony Jami Sasaka, interreligious dialogue coordinator for Chemchemi Ya Ukweli (Kiswahili for Wellspring of Truth), and Otieno Ombok, consultant at Chemchemi and executive director at Bondo Institute for Development and Technology. Sasaka and Ombok talked about Chemchemi’s work as the only Kenyan organizations working to train people on the strategies and way of life of nonviolent action.

Revered Sasaka, could you start by telling me what brought you to Chemchemi and to this kind of work?

Sasaka: I am a Quaker, and three principles govern my life and faith: peace and nonviolence, truth, and voluntary simplicity. I believe that God is in everyone and that makes life sacred. There is an important difference between passivity and active nonviolent action, which people often overlook; nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity or “turning the other cheek” to receive another blow. Rather, nonviolence requires actively resisting against oppression and violence. For instance, Chemchemi trained people in nonviolent action leading up to uprisings against the dictator [Daniel arap] Moi, and we organized boycotts during the 1997 elections. At the time, there were many violent clashes, and it was difficult to practice nonviolent resistance, but the situation made it even more important.

The 1997 elections were a genesis for the nonviolent movement because people lived the consequences of violent uprisings and reprisals. The motto of “free, fair, and peaceful elections” became widespread, as people understood the need for peacefully fighting for rights. In 2002, people were full of hope and acted more peacefully as Moi stepped down and Mwai Kibaki got elected. This is when Chemchemi started supporting the constitutional reform process with the Ufungamano campaign. The new president, despite people’s hopes, backtracked on most pledges, and a disquiet setting in almost immediately. New religious dynamics were emerging at the same time. The church started supporting Kibaki even though it had never done so and despite his broken promises.

Ombok: It is important to understand the role of the church historically to appreciate the significance of the support for Kibaki. Historically, the church has been a major player in organizing people for social change and fighting poverty and illiteracy. In 1988, for instance, the Catholic Church started the Justice and Peace Commission, which aimed to “further the progress of poorer peoples, to encourage social justice among nations, to offer to less developed nations the means whereby they can further their own progress...” The Anglicans were especially committed to this initiative. But more recently, the clergy has become more politicized and less for true social reform. In 2004, the church largely sided with the government against the draft constitution of 2005, which eventually failed to pass the referendum. During this period there were congregations that favored the president and benefited from those in power.

With the election of Kibaki in 2002 the Catholic Church felt that it was now its time to be a major player in politics, as they had felt marginalized before then. But the church was losing its moral legitimacy because of its mixed behavior: on the one hand, they had associations with the establishment, and on the other, they spoke for justice and reform. Catholics started having a significant presence at all levels of government, including the military. By the 2003 Constitutional Conference, the church had basically decided that it was no longer interested in pursuing a constitutional change because they had achieved what they wanted—namely, to remove dictator Moi from power. The government was divided in two camps: in one group were those in favor of a new constitution and against the church, and on another group were those against the constitution and in favor of the church. These divisions were exacerbated in 2007 with Odinga, a Luo, running for Kibaki’s seat. Those in the opposition were convinced that the elections were stolen, leading to widespread violence, burning, looting, and generalized chaos.

I believe that the post-electoral violence in 2007 and 2008 was a blessing in disguise because it made Kenyans understand the importance of nonviolent action to instill social change. The horrific consequences of violence forced people to think of alternative ways to achieve their political objectives. Chemchemi, an organization that had already been advocating for nonviolent action since the Moi dictatorship, became a central player in training people on nonviolent action. Not only were politicians now using nonviolence in their speeches and advocating for alternatives to violence, but also the people recognized Chemchemi as a pioneer on these techniques. In fact, one of Chemchemi’s German funders carried out interviews in various parts of the country to determine the impact of the organization on these communities, and they found that people recognize Chemchemi as the proponent of nonviolent action.

Who do you train in nonviolent action, and how do you get in touch with those people in the first place?

Sasaka: We couple interfaith dialogue with nonviolent action. The strategic value of having a focus on faith is twofold. First, the reach and loyalty that congregations enjoy in this country is unparalleled by any other institution. Second, there is enormous respect for religious leaders, which means that people listen to what they say. Hence, our strategy is to train religious figures in the way of life and strategies of nonviolent action, and the idea is that through their preaching our message will have a broader audience. We came to this model after years of training individuals in the community—our impact was not ideal then, as we would train 30 people, and three would actually follow up with the commitment.

The challenge with interfaith work is of a different nature. First, we have to be careful to leave out the particularities of religion and focus on the common themes, goals, and beliefs. But the major obstacle now has to do with the fact that religious leaders believe that they are already nonviolent and live an enlightened life. Faith leaders feel that they embody peace and nonviolence, and that they do not have much to learn from these trainings. In addition, there are some religious figures that are very comfortable with the status quo, as it provides them with status, wealth, and a structure in which they know how to operate. Religious institutions are incredibly bureaucratic, and it takes years to get an answer to a simple request. Imagine a change in their curriculum to include teachings on nonviolence! Ideally we would introduce our trainings in seminaries and make them part of standard knowledge.

We have noticed that Islam does not operate in such a hierarchical structure. As a Muslim you are not bound to belong to a congregation, and everyone who enters the mosque is the same. In church you have an altar, a specific seat for the president, etc. When we bring Muslims and Christians together we are very careful to dwell on our similarities, and of course choose friendly congregations to do these dialogues and trainings. We have done a few interfaith dialogues recently to discuss the provisions of the proposed constitution, and they have been quite successful.

How do you fund your work?

Ombok: Catholic Relief Services was our major funder for 10 years, but they are no longer our donors. They became interested in funding other type of work. The German Catholic Bishops Conference, the Pax Christi Netherlands, and the Dutch organization Cordaid are important donors. We also have many smaller partners, but it is generally difficult to fund our programs. The Jesuit Hakimani initiative has also been our partner. Funding is increasingly difficult to come by, especially if you want to remain pure and not benefit from the very things that you are fighting. There is a bigger challenge which is ideological, and fundraising forces us to come to grips with it.

Could you tell me about this challenge you are talking about, and more generally about the most important obstacles to your work?

Ombok: The major obstacle to peace and justice is the ideology of capitalism. Even a responsible form of capitalism misses the point: individualism and a consumerism corrupts, and the social self is undignified and suppressed. The accumulation of personal wealth happens at the expense of the community, as those who cannot afford to live that life are ostracized. Violence is a consequence of this system, which sees poverty as inevitable, and money and power as the ultimate goods. As Gandhi said, “poverty is the worst form of violence.” As peace activists we have to look beyond the obvious and understand the connections between politics, economics and violence. From 1999 to 2001, Chemchemi worked hard to improve the conditions of workers in a Del Monte factory, as they were being exploited and abused. In the end we were able to change Del Monte’s behavior.

Needless to say, it takes a lot of effort to deconstruct these complex problems and to function as an organization within a world that we would like to fundamentally change. Do we accept money from organizations with which we disagree? This is a very difficult question to answer, and I think we each have to grapple with it and make a choice.

Opens in a new window