| الوصف: |
Background: understanding and improving access to essential services in (post)-conflict settings requires paying particular attention to the actors who occupy the space left ‘empty’ by weak or deficient State institutions. Religious institutions often play a fundamental role among these actors and typically benefit from high trust capital, a rare resource in so-called ‘fragile’ States. While part of the literature has looked at the role faith organisations can play to mobilise and sensitise communities during emergencies, our focus is on a different, essential dimension: the reconfiguration of the relationship between religion and health authorities impelled by health crises.Methods: we analyse observations, interviews, and focus group discussions with 21 leaders from eight different religious categories in Ituri province in 2020-2021.Results: we show how faith institutions handled the Covid-19 lockdown period, notably by using and redeploying structures at the grassroots level but also by responding to health authorities’ call for support. New actors usually not associated with the health system, such as revivalist churches, got involved. The closure of worship places during the lockdown shocked all faith leaders; some saw it as a test of faith while others criticised inconsistent State measures, but, ultimately, most were inclined to follow and support health authorities. Such experience was, however, often one of frustration and feeling unheard. The interviewed religious leaders, especially those whose congregations were not previously involved in healthcare provision, felt that they were doing a favour to the State and the health authorities. Such service is at the level of community-level awareness-raising, but also, crucially, leaders were aware that by publicly committing themselves against Covid-19, they were participating in an effort to depoliticise Covid-19 in a context where the response to past epidemics, especially Ebola, is highly contentious. Conclusions: in the short run, depoliticization may help address health emergencies, but in the longer run and in the absence of a credible space for discussion, it may affect the constructive criticism of health system responses and health system strengthening. The faith leaders’ frustration with the ‘collaboration’ with health authorities (especially for the new actors) also limits its long-term potential. |
