Why churches should not have funds drive in 2026

Fundraising for church programmes should not be at any cost. We are, unfortunately, in the election mode again. The political campaigns for the next generation elections have started in many parts of this country.

Clearly, God has not answered my prayer that the elections be held in 2026 for the reason that already we have done one year of political campaigns and we, ideally, have three more years to go. The desire to campaign for elective seats is stronger than spending at least three and half years serving voters before starting remote campaigns for about six months and the fifth year  gearing up for the official political campaign period.

My focus and also the worry is on the cost at which we raise funds for our various church needs. Not once, not twice but many times, the mainstream churches have strongly warned against improper political fundraising that undermines church credibility. The argument has been that the risk of turning the Church into an easy and organised electoral campaign base is real. Some unscrupulous politicians find it convenient to advertise themselves in safe and sacred spaces compared to expensive and sometimes hostile public rallies.

In the past, the number of politicians invited to church functions tripled over the election campaign period than any other time. The temptation to fundraise for church programmes and related needs during the election campaign period is pegged on the fact that politicians would have raised enough funds to distribute during the election year when voters were most active and tend to remember the candidate who gives more money to individuals, communities and institutions like the church.

The reasoning further stretches to the psychological belief that a candidate who fundraises for the church a year after the election may not be remembered when the campaigns officially kick off. Kenyan voters, from this logic, remember the last good act of a candidate despite prior solid acts. While there are several examples of candidates who get continually re-elected for a history of outstanding performance the pressure that even these types of candidates need to “give something” is exerted during campaigns.

The church therefore needs to start early strategising on how to fundraise for its programmes away from the year of election campaigns. The danger of appearing to endorse candidates based on the amount donated, the risk of misinterpretation of taking advantage of the campaign period to pressure political candidates to prove their worth by how much they contribute, the risk of the less financially endowed candidates but who have integrity qualities for elected leadership feeling less needed, the misconception of the Church as abetting the use of corruption money in its programmes among other claims makes it prudent to insulate the image and credibility of the Church from seeking funds for good cause during elections.

Constitutionally, we know that elections will be held in August 2027. One year before, that is August 2026 to August 2027, churches should freeze major fundraising except for charity works such as for the sick, school fees for isolated needy cases, funerals and other marked needs that even our conscience will not leave us at peace should we not act. However, programmes such as the construction of church buildings, schools, hospitals or other needs that can be done before and after should be placed in the parking lot.

By staying away from funds donated by political candidates during the election year, the Church will be sending a clear message to the electorate that the values the Church stands for should not in any way be relativised nor become ambiguous during electoral campaigns.

Secondly, the church will gain ground to fight against rampant bribery that takes place during the campaigns. Thirdly, this will allow the engagement between church leaders and candidates to be deep, development-oriented and free of disguised endorsements for one candidate over another. Fourthly, it will enable church leaders to pray for all candidates without fear or favour and let to voters make independent decisions. Finally, when election results are disputed at any level, the church will stand a better chance of reconciling parties.

Dr Mokua is the executive director of Loyola Centre for Media and Communication