Blog Details

A regional conversation shaped by a changing political landscape
The forum comes at a pivotal moment for East Africa. Over the past several years, several countries in the region have witnessed shrinking civic space, increasing restrictions on civil society organizations, and legislation affecting sexual and gender minorities. Religious institutions continue to hold significant influence over public opinion, political discourse, education, and community life. As a result, discussions about inclusion are rarely confined to questions of individual rights; they also involve theology, culture, governance, and national identity.
Against this backdrop, bringing religious leaders into direct conversation with communities that have often experienced exclusion represents more than a symbolic gesture. It creates an opportunity to examine how institutions that shape millions of lives might engage difficult social questions without abandoning their core beliefs.

When institutional loyalty collides with personal conviction
One of the forum's most revealing moments came when human rights lawyer Kemigisha Elizabeth posed a simple question to religious leaders:
"What makes it so hard to go into a community and preach that we are all loved and worthy?"

The responses exposed the often unseen pressures facing clergy across the region.
An Anglican priest described how ordination vows require public obedience to church hierarchy, leaving little room for openly challenging official positions.
"The most difficult part is our mandate. When we are ordained, the most important vow we make is to publicly submit to our superiors... They have told us these people are bad people. That is the command we have."

His remarks illustrated an important distinction often overlooked in public debates: institutional positions and individual convictions are not always the same. While some clergy may privately support more inclusive approaches, many operate within systems where public dissent carries professional consequences.
Another participant from the Orthodox tradition echoed that tension, explaining that conversations about inclusion frequently occur only in personal capacities because official church doctrine leaves little room for public deviation.
Their reflections shifted the conversation from one of personal prejudice to one of institutional governance, highlighting how organizational structures can shape public discourse.

"The most difficult part is our mandate. When we are ordained, the most important vow we make is to publicly submit to our superiors."

Faith as both barrier and bridge

Rather than treating religion solely as an obstacle, participants explored its potential as a resource for social cohesion.
Panelists described religion as the "software" that shapes beliefs and values, while everyday actions become the "hardware" through which those beliefs are lived. A Muslim cleric argued that Islamic teachings themselves provide a foundation for inclusion, pointing to Quranic passages emphasizing the sanctity of human life and the moral responsibility to uphold dignity. His argument reflected a broader theme emerging throughout the forum: while interpretations differ, many faith traditions contain ethical principles that can support peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement. The challenge, participants suggested, is less about whether sacred texts contain these values than about how religious communities choose to interpret and apply them in contemporary societies.

Small acts of leadership can reshape communities
The forum also challenged assumptions that social change only occurs through sweeping institutional reforms.
Sheikh Ibrahim from Mombasa shared how years of engagement between religious leaders and organizations working with gender and sexual minorities have gradually reduced hostility within parts of Kenya's coastal communities. His account suggested that trust-building, repeated dialogue, and sustained local engagement may achieve what public confrontation often cannot. Rev. Godfrey Adera reinforced this practical approach. Rather than expecting every religious leader to become an outspoken advocate overnight, he encouraged civil society organizations to recognize incremental forms of leadership.
A school chaplain who quietly prevents the expulsion of vulnerable students, he argued, may contribute as much to dignity and belonging as someone making public declarations. The lesson was clear: institutional change often begins through everyday decisions made by individuals working within existing systems 

Reframing difference
Perhaps the forum's most compelling insight centered on how societies assign meaning to difference.
Rev. Adera questioned why neighbors can coexist peacefully for years until discovering that someone belongs to a marginalized community.
"What changed?" he asked.
The individual remains the same; only society's perception has shifted. He invited participants to consider how they already navigate difference in other aspects of daily life. Patients rarely ask about a doctor's religion before accepting treatment. Customers seldom inquire about a shopkeeper's political beliefs before making a purchase. In many ordinary interactions, competence and shared humanity outweigh identity. The forum suggested that this same principle could inform broader social relationships. Difference, participants argued, should not automatically be interpreted as danger.

Moving beyond tolerance toward belonging

One of the forum's recurring themes was the distinction between tolerance, acceptance, and belonging.

Tolerance allows people to exist. Acceptance recognizes their humanity.
Belonging goes further by ensuring that people are able to participate fully in society without having to suppress their identities or fear exclusion.
Rev. Adera described this shift as moving from "witness" to "withness." Rather than approaching communities primarily to persuade them, he argued that faith institutions can also accompany people through their lived realities—supporting education, health, livelihoods, and human dignity regardless of difference.
His remarks reflected an emerging conversation within parts of the global faith sector: that religious leadership can remain grounded in conviction while expanding its capacity for dialogue and compassion.

Why this forum matters
The significance of the East Africa Belonging Forum extends beyond the conversations held in Kampala.
East Africa's future will be shaped not only by elections, legislation, or economic growth but also by its ability to sustain social trust in increasingly diverse and polarized societies. Forums that bring together voices that rarely meet cannot resolve deeply rooted disagreements in a single gathering. They can, however, create conditions in which dialogue becomes possible, assumptions are challenged, and relationships begin to replace stereotypes.
For a region navigating complex questions of governance, identity, faith, and human rights, those conversations are not peripheral. They are central to building more resilient communities. In a political climate where division often attracts more attention than dialogue, the East Africa Belonging Forum offered something increasingly uncommon: a space where listening itself became an act of leadership.