Implementing Strategic Religious Engagement in International Development

Abstract

Strategic religious engagement in relief & development efforts requires: a careful country assessment, establishing appropriate principles of engagement, and defining priority sectors and institutions (possibly including multireligious platforms equipped to serve as intermediaries). Important factors to take into account include: (a) a risk assessment; (b) review of information sources and gaps; (c) understanding religion-state relationships; (d) religious roles in civil society and with both formal and informal institutions; (e) involvement in humanitarian activities including prevention and response; and (f) possible sensitivities and conflicts involving religious actors including potential for engagement with a peacebuilding focus.

Keywords:

• faith-based organizations
• USAID
• Establishment Clause
• peacebuilding
• religious ecology
• pluralism

Strategic religious engagement (SRE) should be a key element in building an overall country or regional strategic plan and it should inform stakeholder mapping, engagement, and collaboration in any given context. The term SRE itself carries with it, or at least implies, several critical elements that should guide approaches to working with religious communities in advancing shared development and humanitarian objectives.

First, strategic indicates that the objectives, approach, and related instruments are present in an articulated and coherent manner (and that resources and means match those objectives). Strategic should also imply “shared”—i.e. that the goals have been developed with host nation humanitarian and development partners, to include religious actors. Strategic seeks to place short-term and episodic needs within a broad knowledge base and a deepening set of relationships, such that local religious partners’ broad ethos and goals, as they relate to development and humanitarian goals, are integrated as part of USAID’s engagement strategy and the host government’s humanitarian and development objectives and Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

“Religious” accounts for the full range of formal (legal) and informal (social) faith-based entities and networks within the country (recognizing that appreciating (blurred) boundaries may call for care and discernment). “Engagement” suggests an ongoing set of interactions and relationships that are (being) grounded in mutual respect, reflecting contemporary learning about partnership principles, and reflecting USAID’s core values of inclusion, respect, and diversity. That said, engagement can be critical as well as cooperative, sometimes simultaneously, as not all religious actors are appropriate partners and healthy disagreements are likely on a range of policy issues.

“Partnership” refers to broad relationships and does not necessarily imply a financial engagement. It may include, for example, involvement in training, elaboration of sector strategies, or problem solving (e.g. addressing hate speech). All engagement takes place in someone’s community. Engagement begins with seeking to understand the local context as it is understood by those who live there. Religious landscapes vary widely from place to place. The religious landscape in any country or community has a distinctive history, practical activities, and power relationships among different communities. Differences between different faiths and denominations or divisions within the same faith may color relationships, including representing sources of conflict. Mixed spaces can be actively contested or relatively settled by different forms of mutual accommodation. In some settings multireligious bodies play significant roles in addressing tensions among different communities and can contribute to developing shared understandings, often around aspirations for peace and justice but also on pragmatic topics linked to design and implementation of development programs.

Understanding the Establishment Clause¹

A concern among some USAID officers is that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits possibilities for engagement with religious actors on many topics. An important step is thus to ensure that guidance on proper limits is available and is reflected in both training and pragmatic guidance. Overall, the Establishment Clause should not put a damper on engagement with religious communities in different forms of dialogue.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion, though the precise definition of “establishment” is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, what constitutes an “establishment of religion” is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the “Lemon” test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state. For more elaborated discussion, please see Legal Information Institute’s (LII) “Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Free Exercise Clause” pages. (See sources in the bibliography.)

Assessing a Country’s Religious Landscape and Options for Strategic Engagement

Strategic religious engagement, as with other forms of engagement, is shaped by the dynamics of the specific context and personalities involved (and their engagement skills), as well as by USAID’s operations and strategies. In this article we provide a framework for SRE preparation, which is based on a process approach to evaluating a situation and can be integrated into USAID’s current operational framework with its operational cycle and commitment to collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA). This framework has three basic parts: assessing the general and specific country context; reflecting on how key principles of engagement might be applied in that context; and developing a context-linked assessment/engagement plan institutionally.

An assessment begins with a good reading list, recognizing how often there is little time for a full review. It is nonetheless in the interest of USAID personnel to explore broad takes on the country, especially seeking out novels and films. Academic papers are important, but rarely provide a “feel” for the place. Please see resources available at the end of this paper for ideas about how to build and tailor your own bibliography.

A country assessment/analysis is the critical point. Two issues are almost always present, no matter the country. First, the host government at the national and regional level operates within a distinctive social-cultural and historical-political context. Relationships between the government and religious communities are set out in constitutions and laws, as well as the (un)spoken norms of the society, and relationships with others, notably religious institutions and communities.

Their application to humanitarian and development matters will vary. In some cases, governments have formalized and well-defined relationships with religious communities on at least some matters (e.g. a memorandum of understanding on management of health facilities). In other cases, religious communities may operate in a clandestine fashion (due to political tensions and perceptions of security threats).²

The following questions are likely to arise through a CDGS assessment and analysis:

• What is USAID’s country strategy, and what are its priorities? Has there been purposeful experience with faith engagement in conjunction with that strategy? Any conflicts?

• What are the challenges and risks of (not) engaging religious actors?

• Are religious groups viewed as part of civil society, and what are the implications of those relationships? Are they part (or not) or any formal consultative processes?

• What is the state of the relationship between ethnic- and/or religious majority and ethnic- and/or religious minorities? Does the government favor, or is it perceived to favor, a specific community? To exclude one or several? What are the implications?

• What are the issues that affect localization for specific institutions or sectors? What are the roles of large international NGOs and how do they relate to local actors? Are there ways to engage with smaller, probably less well-known, local organizations? How to assess capacity?

• Are there questions around possible instrumentalization of religious actors?

• If there are tensions around proselytism, what are they, and why?

• What are areas of significant policy disagreement or tension involving development approaches (including by the host government) and what approaches might help in moving forward?

• How far are issues of funding faith-linked groups of concern and how far do these relate to procurement rules and practices? What are the financial resources available to specific faith communities, especially from external sources? If sector-wide approaches are significant, how do religious actors fit within such programs?

• How far are multifaith/interfaith approaches desirable or feasible in advancing strategic goals?

• What is the relationship of religious actors to other religious actors in the geographic region? How does the specific country relate to the other countries of the region where religious matters are concerned? Are regional organizations involved in material ways?

• If there are significant conflicts, how are religious communities involved, positively and less positively?

Assessing the evidence available will be part of the process. We recommend a “swiss cheese” approach, that focuses on available knowledge (assessing its quality and relevance), while simultaneously identifying areas where there are serious knowledge gaps. This approach establishes a baseline from which one can present context, and/or gaps in preparing one’s own (institutional) specific assessment/engagement plan.

Regarding existing research, the field of “religion and development” has emerged and evolved since the turn of the century, with a heavy concentration of research on health, particularly work on HIV AIDS, malaria, and Ebola (see Tomalin 2020, 5–8). It is critical to appreciate the religious beliefs and stances, to include the potential negative and positive implications, affecting both individual behaviors and influencing government approaches as well (e.g. as discussed earlier in paper #3 regarding HIV AIDS, family planning). Because the relationship between faith and health systems is the best documented, it is also possible to track partnerships and global financial support focused on specific diseases which represents a significant share of total external funding, including by USAID.

In the same vein, extensive efforts have been made to draw lessons from the Ebola crisis as well as from the Zika, HIV/AIDS, and now COVID-19 crises (see Marshall 2020a, 2020b; Marshall, Wilkinson, and Robinson 2020). While such research directly explores the impact of FBOs on specific disease contexts, it also highlights the diversity of situations and varied roles played by religious bodies, from the national to the very local level, and thus will often highlight aspects of the context that affect relationships among religious communities and with governments.

Addressing Differences in Approach and Perspectives

Debates around broad economic development approaches can be a central challenge in strategic alignment. An example is the conversations between the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank after 2003, which were difficult in part because of a desire by the WCC to question underlying economic models, in a setting where these issues were not “on the table.”³ These and similar discussions (for example around the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers linked to debt relief packages have highlighted differences in terminology as well as the very different approaches that the different parties took. In contrast, the Jubilee Debt campaign leading up to the 2000 Millennium year highlighted religious views on the morality of poor country debt in ways that contributed substantially to changes in policy. In many countries, Zambia and Kenya, for example, macro level (global) discussions have played out in the local context, with religious communities often taking on active and at times confrontational roles vis-à-vis development partners. Similar issues are likely to emerge again around the COVID-19 crisis as country financial crises demand international attention and resources and debt burdens loom large.

Efforts to link economic performance and religious beliefs include Brian Grim’s work focused on linking business that is “religion-friendly” to development performance (Grim 2013; see also Barro and McCleary 2003). The Religious Freedom Institute and Robert Woodberry (Baylor University) also point to correlations between religious freedom and economic performance, though causal links are not well established (Woodberry 2006).

Research on micro-economic and livelihood programs including microfinance tends to be less contentious. Some programs and the rationales on which they are grounded are significantly colored by religious approaches and fit well within broader approaches (though there are exceptions).⁴ An interesting example is research on a conservation-focused agriculture approach known as “Farming God’s Way,” developed originally in Zimbabwe. Research has affirmed the social and ecological benefits of the approach which, for example, recommends mulching by equating it with “God’s blanket” (Spaling and Vander Kooy 2019). Some studies point to important areas where religious practices and approaches have obvious significance for development performance. Examples include the impact of Catholic communities especially in Latin America, ways in which Islamic finance can support community involvement in development programs, and the impact of prosperity gospel approaches (which can be positive and negative) (Berger 2010; Bernstein and Berger 1998). Far less positive is religious opposition to polio vaccination campaigns, in Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, a topic demanding urgent attention as debates around a COVID-19 vaccine loom large.

Meanwhile, research around several issues has expanded rapidly in the last decade or so. As discussed in paper #3, these topics include the relationship between, and the influence and impact of, religion and: (1) gender; (2) extremist movements; (3) conflict; (4) peacebuilding; (5) land rights and disputes; and, (6) family planning.

That said, the knowledge gaps, or holes—that make the cheese, Swiss—remain significant. Topics that are less thoroughly researched but where religion interfaces with development (and some humanitarian assistance), include: (1) education; (2) the impact of livelihoods programs; (3) water and energy; (4) fragile states (at country level, especially); and, (5) governance and anti-corruption.

In any event, exploring the research outputs on religion and humanitarian assistance/ development accomplishes two goals. First it provides the available context for issues being researched; and it names the knowledge gaps in each country. This “Swiss Cheese” approach thus identifies potential partnerships, and leverage points, for partnerships in-country—research and/or projects.

Taking a Country Approach

We are unaware of any USG or USAID template for assessing the religious landscape and its intersection with humanitarian assistance and development goals and projects, let alone a template for engaging particular countries.⁵ Given this assessment gap (which applies broadly across international development institutions), the Berkley Center at Georgetown University and the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD) have undertaken a series of country reviews of faith and development, aimed at providing an evidence base for meaningful strategic religious engagement. Studies to date cover ten countries—Guatemala, Senegal, Kenya, Nigeria, Lesotho, Myanmar, Tanzania, Philippines, Bangladesh, and Cambodia—and are designed to serve as potential models for an approach to assessment that considers development priorities in the context of pertinent faith perspectives and activities (and vice versa).

That said, comprehensive, religious landscape surveys are hard to come by (and time consuming). Shorter reports offer an alternative, less in-depth model, as do the lessons which arise from personal reflection on individual experience, organized evaluations, and reviews (examples of which are also housed at WFDD as well as the Joint Learning Initiative). Such non-traditional “evidence” is equally vital: not only for the obvious substance but also because there may be little other research and/or assessments to consider. Although this information is primarily qualitative and anecdotal, it is a living library that continues to grow. It is based on project and leadership stories but, in the spirit of theology, USAID can perhaps value such stories as “data with soul” and so be guided by them.⁶

Principles of Engagement

Most analyses recognize a core set of reasons for donor engagement with FBOs and religious communities which have many similarities to their humanitarian and development engagement with governments and secular NGOs and CBOs (Moigne and Petersen 2016). Most fundamentally, in countries where religion is a significant element of culture and society, religious communities and their faith-based organizations can be important partners in achieving humanitarian and development objectives. Beyond the five strategic reasons for engagement presented above, operational reasons to engage include:

• Collaborate to understand how best to ensure effective delivery of aid and physical protection and to identify and rectify gaps;

• Share knowledge, expertise, and learning;

• Discuss combined capacities to reach vulnerable communities;

• Bridge humanitarian action to development through peacebuilding work;

• Mainstream religious literacy (and “development literacy”) in one another as practical means of building mutual respect (e.g. introducing faith actors to the organization and strategies of USAID may be an important step towards meaningful dialogue and relationships);

• Discern possible mechanisms for accountability and strategic efforts to counter corrupt practices; and,

• Develop mutual decision-making and capacity-building that model religious pluralism and democratization, thereby increasing civic space, and building resilience to disasters and/or (violent) extremism.

No matter the operational reasons to engage FBOs and religious communities, the evidence suggests that USAID personnel should work in accordance with the following five golden rules or principles of good practice in their stakeholder mapping and engagement, and in any collaboration activities they pursue with FBOs and religious actors.

Golden Rules for Constructive Strategic Religious Engagement

Evidence suggests five main lessons about donor engagement with FBOs and religious communities which USAID staff can usefully apply. These include: know who you are dealing with; speak the language; learn from each other; let FBOs be who they are; and some key do’s and don’ts in everyday practice.

Know Who You are Dealing with in a Diverse Religious Ecology

Appreciating the diversity of FBOs and religious communities is a strong message that comes out from academic and policy analysis. USAID should avoid over-simplifying and generalizing about FBOs and the communities around them. There are many different types of FBOs and communities around the world. Donor engagement must be alert to the wide variations in size, mission, denomination, capability, purpose, culture, and niche. It follows that awareness of historical or contemporary tensions among them need to be taken into account.

Analysts have developed several different typologies of FBOs and religious communities. These typologies provide a brief introduction to USAID personnel who are perhaps unfamiliar with FBOs. The typologies illustrate various characteristics that institutions, or their individual representatives, might possess. As such, they present a spectrum of profiles which should inform strategic religious engagement—always rooting that engagement in the discernment of the particular individual and institution at hand. In differing circumstances, it may be more appropriate to focus on the level of religiosity in FBOs, in others more on their experience and underlying goals. Religiosity is typically gauged along a spectrum. Perhaps the best-known spectrum is by Sider and Unruh: faith permeated—faith-centered—faith affiliated—faith background—faith/secular partnership (Sider and Unruh 2004; see also Unruh and Sider 2005, 109–125; and Frame 2020).

A simpler four-tier model describes the religiosity of an FBO as either “passive, active, persuasive or exclusive” (Clarke, Jennings, and Shaw 2008). Simpler still, one can make a short cut between FBOs which are “faith integrated” and so operating a holistic religious mission, or “faith segmented” where their practical work in health or education stands apart from the religious practice (McLeigh 2011).

Two quantitative studies suggest two other interesting differences across FBOs. The first distinguishes operational and advocacy focus. A comparison of 428 FBOs found that FBOs at the more religious end of the spectrum were more focused on immediate operational results. The practical work of helping people every day matters most to them. In contrast, FBOs on the more secular end of the spectrum focus more on advocacy and changing the system, what we might call a more “prophetic” role (McLeigh 2011). (An Old Testament word, “prophetic” in a religious sense is an exhortation to live out the commands of the faith, to fight injustice, and take care of one’s neighbor; in a secular sense, it is “speaking truth to power” on behalf of the common good.)

A longitudinal study of Canadian government funding compared Canadian secular NGOs and FBOs, suggesting that international FBOs are more responsive to the priorities and policies of their southern faith partners than to their secular northern donors (Paras 2012, 231–249). Thus, large FBOs in the humanitarian system may be less “donor-driven” and more “partner-driven,” which is important for USAID to anticipate and appreciate.

The way religiosity or specific religious values play in an FBO is one measure USAID staff might want to understand. In assessing the implications for USAID, finding common ground in understandings of human rights and adherence to USAID policies and national laws offers a good reference point. There will be instances where such characteristics are not pertinent for the topic under discussion, and others where it could be a “game changer” and an alert to possible risks (negative views on women’s equality or child marriage are examples). The well-established humanitarian principles of neutrality and openness to all without discrimination offer a good point of reference.

The second is the type of organization USAID is dealing with as a partner or potential partner—its character and purpose. Here too there is great diversity. One FBO may be a small emergency school run by ten devoted religious teachers as a faith commitment to make their community contribution in a crisis. Another FBO may be an elaborate multi-purpose religio-politico organization that has an explicit political theology and a determined mix of religious, social, political, even military, ambitions (these are especially common in the Sub-continent). At this end of the spectrum, are full-spectrum organizations like Hizbollah in Lebanon, the RSS in India, and the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East.

 Table 1 offers one way to consider the main types of religious organizations and can be used and adapted by USAID in its stakeholder mapping efforts to read and understand particular FBOs and the religious communities around them. It can be a point of departure, demonstrating the scope of FBOs and highlighting the nuance required to effectively engage them.⁷

Table 1 Types of Religious Organizations.

Type of organization	Characteristics
Congregations	Religiously organized groups of people whose primary purpose is to worship together, including churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and home groupings.
Local associations, charities and faith networks	Religiously inspired organizations whose primary purpose is to collect and distribute alms in the local community and carry out one-way or mutual aid.
Socio-cultural organizations	Religious organizations whose primary purpose is to promote and provide cultural activities like sports, festivals, education, and arts.
Development and humanitarian NGOs	FBOs whose primary purpose is to provide development and humanitarian aid.
Missionary organizations	Religious organizations whose main purpose is to spread and strengthen commitment to their religion or denomination by seeking converts, educating existing members and promoting orthodoxy.
Universities, schools and research centers	Religious organizations whose main purpose is to spread knowledge and research for religious and/or secular purposes. They may include specific institutions dedicated to training of future religious leaders
Religio-political organizations	Religious organizations whose primary purpose is to gain or influence formal political power.
Religio-military organizations	Religious organizations whose purpose is to use armed force to bring about religio-political objectives.
Apex organizations	These are the doctrine setting, command and control organizations in a religious community.
Intra-religious representative councils and networks (also termed ecumenical)	Umbrella organizations within the same faith whose purpose is to represent, coordinate, and mobilize people and organizations in common cause.
Inter-religious networks and alliances	Coalitions of organizations from different faiths coming together to seek understanding or act in common cause.

This typology helps in recognizing and analyzing FBOs to gauge if they are “simple” and operating solely in one place on the spectrum of organizational types; or if they are “elaborate” and combine various purposes, character, and types of organizations. When FBOs are elaborate, it is typical to refer to their having a religious core with various “wings” like a political wing, a humanitarian wing, educational wing, or a military wing that operate simultaneously towards a broader strategic purpose.

In analyzing and approaching elaborate FBOs, it is usually a mistake to read them simply as “only political” or “only religious.” But it is possible to interpret some full-spectrum FBOs as instrumentalizing humanitarian assistance and development aid for their own purposes, which USAID needs to be aware of as a mixed motive in a potential partner. Similarly, this charge of instrumentalizing humanitarian action and development support has been leveled at many governments in their combined military and aid policies in recent years that are sometimes perceived as exploiting humanitarian assistance and development for “hearts and minds” influence over needy populations, or who have obstructed and limited humanitarian aid to favor their own constituency.

Religious parties to conflict, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are also open to this charge. So too are full-spectrum religious organizations in disaster relief. One recent study shows how the Rashtriya Swayemsevak Sangh (RSS) has adopted a key role in Indian natural disasters since the early 20^th century because of its commitment to the Hindu obligation of impartial seva (service), and to show Hinduism’s equal commitment to humanitarian relief alongside the Christian relief activities encouraged, according to the RSS, by the imperial power. There is also clear evidence that over time, the RSS focused on this relief and welfare activity as part of its strategy to put itself at the heart of people’s urgent needs and grow its capacity and reputation as a popular political movement working for the people. This strategy helped guide the RSS path to widespread support and its pivotal role in the creation and success of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that governs India today (Bhattacharjee 2019, especially chapter 2).

Speak the Language

The challenge of different languages—spoken, spiritual, secular, and organizational—and the need for “translation” regularly comes up in the analytical literature. Sacred and secular discourses can be very different. They can both employ highly technical but different language about the same things and so not hear or easily misunderstand each other. Many internationally focused humanitarian FBOs are bilingual (as are significant numbers of development specialists) and can move easily from talking about “sins” one minute and “human rights violations” the next, or “God’s love” in a prayer session with their congregation, and “the principle of humanity” when they meet OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

UNICEF officials have observed the barrier created by bringing complicated child rights terminology into their engagement with religious communities and FBOs, and invest time in translating their objectives and concerns into the scriptural and ethical terms that make up the majority discourse (Robinson 2010). The ICRC takes a similar approach. It has long engaged in the religious vernacular about the laws of war and speaks not only in the complex legal speak of IHL. ICRC researchers have also worked hard to understand the distinct idioms of restraint and protection in war used by members of armed forces and armed groups, which similarly do not use IHL discourse but speak in highly localized military ethics (ICRC 2018).

In health and mental health, religious language can become alarming to the secular mind and at times can reflect important differences in interpretations of fact and thus needed action. Communities enduring Ebola talked often of the importance and influence of “spirits,” and the need to honor or placate them (Oosterhoff and Wilkinson 2015). In Uganda and other countries, witches have been suspected of burning down houses and are persecuted as a result; and in South Sudan, the Protection Cluster found that people’s main fear was from people who turn themselves into lions, rather than the threat of armed groups (Russell 2014). In Lesotho, during construction of a major dam, the “spiritual losses” experienced by the community were misunderstood and ignored by developers (Thabane 2000).

Much humanitarian and development jargon is meaningless to religious activists and it is not a good use of their time to learn it when they have their own way of talking about what conditions are good and bad, and what activities are worthy of doing and required of them by their beliefs. In their stakeholder engagement, USAID staff should try to become “literate enough” in religious language wherever they can, and certainly not censor it in their partners, unless it presents real barriers to intergroup communication. What is important here, as it is in all engagements with partners, is to avoid the use of jargon, to be conscious of the tendency to fall into acronym and jargon traps, and to express ideas in language that makes sense to religious (and other) counterparts.

Learn from Each Other

As discussed above, all good partnerships should be a two-way street, a mutual process of learning and change. The evidence strongly supports the need for donor engagement to resist the temptation to simply “instrumentalize” FBOs, using them minimally as good cheap sub-contractors to get into communities that donors are struggling to reach or understand. Development partners need to learn each other’s strengths and weaknesses, agree on shared needs and goals, adapting to each other in order to partner, and therefore produce needed local change, together.

A good model here is the Bridge Builders program in South Sudan, an explicitly and intentionally “two-way model” of “capacity-sharing” between local faith-based humanitarian actors and international organizations. Bridge Builders seeks more effective and timely responses. It also targets “localization gaps” in geography and sectors where local FBO capacity can be brought into action by international support. Evaluation of the bridge-building model shows that both FBOs and international organizations were improved by their two-way engagement and that people’s needs were better covered (Wilkinson et al. 2020). Truly mutual engagement of this kind is essential if USAID’s CLA engagement is to increase trust, learn real lessons, and adapt its collaborations to positive effect.

Let FBOs be Who They are

Another key lesson, related to the two-way model of engagement, is the importance of not trying to reimagine or encourage FBOs in the donor’s own image or in the image of an ideal secular NGO partner. FBO distinctiveness is valuable and it is not wise to damage and disfigure it. (Of course, FBOs should let USAID personnel be who they are, but this discussion is not focused on preparing FBOs to engage government personnel and policy positions—although such a process is needed.) USAID’s commitment to facilitate development via authentic and self-reliant local actors demands an important measure of mutual respect and autonomy in USAID collaborations.

This posture is the art of relational diplomacy, of a complementary partnership—i.e. to change but not so much that one or both partners lose essential elements of what makes them valuable in the process. FBOs born from a religious community and dependent on their common faith, and volunteers, must be able to do many things in their own way, such that they do not lose their faith-based character or their connection to those around them. The dangers of bureaucracy, jargon, and excessive process are well known to donors and secular international organizations. FBOs should be entitled to resist them where they damage rather than improve.

This challenge comes to a head in accountability relationships. Accountability has many dimensions. Two have special importance, requiring meaningful dialogue around them. The first is engaging religious communities on fundamental human rights and development objectives, in ways that hold both religious communities and governments accountable.

A second key dimension is developing clear understandings on the essential need for financial probity and accountability for results, both for FBOs and in relation to governments. FBOs need a certain freedom to continue accounting for their actions in their own way as well as through more formal institutional lines. It is, of course, essential that basic principles of transparent, honest financial reporting be followed when USAID funds are involved. The point here is that such reporting can take different forms, and this should be considered where finance is involved, but also in cases where there are issues around an entity’s probity, for example in the local press.

An area where much can be learned is in accounting for results, where an unduly quantitative approach to counting beneficiaries, for example, can be both off-putting and largely meaningless. A study of two Ghanaian FBOs made clear the ways in which donor engagement must be flexible and find a good balance between an FBO’s informal patterns of accounting to “an all-seeing God” and their religious community, and more formal bureaucratic methods of accountability required by donor institutions (Owusu 2017). Many local FBOs are in and of the community they serve in a way that is not often true of secular humanitarian NGOs. This lived interaction means donors should learn to understand and report how the contract between affected religious communities and FBOs operates informally. Such a process can be complemented with more formal indicators and mechanisms discussed, identified, and agreed with the FBO and the religious community, which specifically meets key donor requirements (Owusu 2017).

Follow Some Best Practice Do’s and Don’ts

The closer engagement between large UN humanitarian and development organizations and FBOs in the last 20 years has produced several guidance manuals on strategic religious engagement (see UNDP 2014; Türk, Riera, and Poirier 2014). These four “do’s and don’ts” combine principles promoted in these and other academic sources reviewed for this article to guide USAID in its engagement culture and activities.

1. Get to know and understand the FBOs, religious communities, and religious leaders in and around a humanitarian/development setting by:

   • identifying and mapping the faith communities around you;

   • familiarizing yourself with their presence, organizational character, and roles;

   • understanding what they believe and how it compares to others;

   • knowing what you believe, introducing yourself and developing mutual understanding; and,

   • making a correct estimate of their power, influence, and representation.

2. Share humanitarian assessments and objectives together and work out how you can add value to each other’s programs by:

   • Developing shared humanitarian/development objectives;

   • Building trust in order to, among other things, compare strengths and weaknesses; and,

   • Adapting to work better together.

3. Avoid using FBOs and religious communities as proxies, and work with them to:

   • increase coverage of aid and protection;

   • invest in local actors and build resilience and self-reliance at community level;

   • support their ability to motivate and mobilize their followers in normative, attitudinal, and behavioral change for humanitarian purposes; and,

   • engage in wider humanitarian/development advocacy, for example to assure adequate funding levels.

4. Challenge or bypass cooperation with FBOs, religious leaders, and religious communities who:

   • Proselytize and exclude in humanitarian and development programs;

   • Stigmatize, discriminate, and persecute;

   • Disregard the rights of women and girls;

   • Lack transparency and a commitment to accountability;

   • Support armed actors who routinely violate IHL and human rights.

These general principles for SRE in humanitarian settings can be worked through in more detail on the ground in an ongoing commitment to religious literacy and engagement.

Preparing an Assessment/Engagement Plan

After developing a general and country specific set of resources and bibliography to inform and form USAID’s broad approach to engaging the intersection of religion and a particular sector, a specific assessment and engagement plan can be prepared, in the given context. It is important to consider both the institutional and the individual dimension. As a representative of the U.S. government, and the American people, not to mention USAID, USAID personnel must act in accordance with the law, relevant policies, local engagement strategies, and the core values of USAID. That said, somewhere along the line, most SRE reaches a point where the religious actor asks why the USAID representative is there. There are, of course, simple answers regarding why USAID was created, American values, etc.

But if positive SRE is to last, it will have to be relational. It may benefit from, at some point, a candid sharing of what one believes (to be clear, this need not be religious). When and how this question is answered will require skill, rooted in a tailored assessment. The answer of the individual has the potential to impact the credibility of the partnership or project at hand. What is important is first honesty, as a pillar of relationships, and second, conveying clearly a sense of openness to learning and authentic curiosity and concern for one’s counterparts. Such comprehensive assessment/engagement templates are rather rare.

Tools used in similar fields point to ways to catalyze and shape thinking about how to assess, and how to engage. The conflict analysis field has long led the way in developing assessments of different factors, that include religion (see Midgley and Brethfeld 2018; Frazer and Owen 2018; U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff 2009). Some new toolkits are emerging related to religion and humanitarian assistance/development. The German government has produced two brief and generally excellent guides to mapping and cooperating with religious actors (see Szilat and Haarbeck 2019), and toolkits on engaging with local faith actors have been prepared by a group of European faith-based relief and development NGOs actors (Watson et al. 2020).⁸ For the most part, however, these tools are directed at the dynamics and people involved in the particular context. To be sure there is some consideration of self (e.g. unacknowledged biases), but they are primarily focused on the religious other, and how that impacts the building of trust, and of getting a task done.

Islamic Relief Worldwide has prepared a useful guide to working in conflicts. Its starting point is an Islamic worldview, posing questions for its role, to include: “What does it mean to be a Muslim iNGO working in these environments? What inspiration and messages are provided for us by Islamic theology and history that can inform our approach to transforming conflict? Can this provide a stable foundation to approach transformation?” (Salek 2014). It’s worth a close read, not only to learn about good conflict transformation but as an illustration of how a faith-based actor goes about understanding itself, with questions it should ask of itself, before engaging. Not a bad place to start strategic religious engagement.

Conclusion: A Deepening Reservoir of Resources

Finally, it is important to note that today the interested development specialist has access to an increasing number of helpful publications and institutional resources. First, there are various overview books. Routledge, for example, has a book series on religion and development (including a 2015 Handbook on Religion and Development); The Secular and Religious Dynamics in Humanitarian Response was published recently. The Global Institutions series includes one on religion (Global Institutions of Religions). Routledge will release in late 2021 the Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement. Next several academic journals focus broadly on the topic; for example, The Review of Faith & International Affairs (also published by Routledge). World Politics is publishing various articles on the topic. WFDD, Joint Learning Initiative, and PaRD have developed large collections of material including case studies, written interviews, records of webinars, policy briefs, and reports. There are specialized books on many specific topics and institutions, for example on health and refugees. The Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, Evangelical movements, and several Islamic charities all produce relevant materials. The literature on religious freedom is often relevant for development work.

A growing number of research centers focus on the topic. The Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development (CREID), located at the Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex in the United Kingdom is an example. According to its website (https://www.ids.ac.uk/programme-and-centre/creid/) it “provides research evidence and delivers practical programmes which aim to redress the impact of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, tackle poverty and exclusion, and promote people’s wellbeing and empowerment.” The Joint Learning Initiative on Faith & Local Communities collaborates internationally on evidence related to faith groups advancing humanitarian and development goals. The research and development consortium at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom (2005–2010) examined these issues in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Tanzania, through partner universities in each country. In the US, Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, the Keough School at Notre Dame, and the University of Arizona are examples of institutions with a special focus on SRE related topics. Numerous other examples could be cited from around the world, but the overall picture is plain: the field of religion and development is broadening and deepening, and opportunities are rapidly expanding for stakeholders at every level.

Disclaimer Statement

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development, the co-conveners, or the United States Government.

Acknowledgments

Support for the production of this research paper was provided by the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. Its publication as part of a special open-access issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs was made possible through the additional support of the Templeton Religion Trust.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katherine Marshall

Katherine Marshall has worked on international development for some five decades. A Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and Professor of the Practice of Development, Religion, and Conflict in the School of Foreign Service, she also directs the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD), whose mission is to bridge gulfs separating the worlds of development and religion. A long career at the World Bank was as an operational manager.

Sudipta Roy

Sudipta Roy is a Senior Researcher at the World Faiths Development Dialogue at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affair. He is currently co-leading several research and learning programs in South and Southeast Asia that focus on religious dimensions of development, freedom of religion and belief, and social cohesion. Sudipta also directs the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies—a consortium of higher education and research institutions in the United States and Bangladesh.

Chris Seiple

Chris Seiple (Ph.D., The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy) is President Emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement and Principal Advisor to the Templeton Religion Trust’s Covenantal Pluralism Initiative. A former U.S. Marine infantry officer, he has served as a Senior Fellow for Comparative Religion at the University of Washington’s Jackson School of International Studies, as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Evidence-Based Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement (2020), and as Co-Chair of the U.S. Secretary of State’s “Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group” (2011–2013).

Hugo Slim

Hugo Slim is Senior Research Fellow, Las Casas Institute for Social Justice, Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford. He has combined a career in academia and humanitarian agencies, including Save the Children, the UN, the ICRC, Oxfam GB, and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. He was Reader in International Humanitarianism at Oxford Brookes University and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. He is a Visiting Professor at Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University and Academic Director of the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights.

Notes

1 USAID’s Rule on Participation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programming can be accessed in the “Code of Federal Regulations”- Title 22 Foreign Relations, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 205. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1e57bccd805b2046288e019cf2614656&mc=true&node=pt22.1.205&rgn=div. See also Establishment Clause n.d.

2 For a discussion of the positive and negative cycles of relationship between a government and religious communities, (see Seiple and Hoover 2012). (See also Seiple 2007; Seiple 2009; Seiple 2010; Seiple 2012; Seiple 2013; Seiple 2014).

3 In a webinar (see https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/wcc-imf-and-the-world-bank-to-continue-dialogue-first-encounter-described-as-historic) a WCC leader observed that “we lost it” by not focusing the dialogue more constructively on ways in which the parties might engage together towards common ends.

4 For a detailed discussion on faith-based organizations’ roles in poverty alleviation, particularly through economic development and microfinances, (see Hoda and Gupta 2014; Khan and Phillips 2010; Five Talents n.d).

5 The annual State Department reports for each country on religious freedom present a starting point for understanding the religious dynamics of a country, as well as, in cooperation with the embassy, a set of potentially relevant relationships that could serve as a point of departure. But the reports are by no means a landscape survey of the various religious actors, good and bad, and their potential impact regarding USAID’s humanitarian assistance and development goals.

6 Brené Brown (2011) coins and develops this idea in her TED Talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o.

7 Adapted from Moigne and Petersen (2016) and Clarke, Jennings, and Shaw (2008).

8 The toolkit was authored by Ruth Watson, ACT Alliance EU, in consortia with Richard McLaverty of Islamic Relief Worldwide, Silvia Sinibaldi of Caritas Europa, and Ruth Faber of EU-CORD.