Uniting Divided Religious Leaders to Democratize Zimbabwe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although author claims to be using Osmer(2008);s four approaches to practical theology research, after discussing it, he fails to organise his work according to the movements, therefore, Osmer's research approach does not seem adequately applied in the article.

secondly, The author argues as though democracy fully agrees with the spiritual frameworks of Christianity and ATR. The contradiction is the contention the decolonising is needed in African society whiles contending that the Western model of leadership is a better option that offers freedom, equality and tolerance.

The quotation from Luke 4:16-20 does not align theologically with the democratization ploy of the article. This aspect needs to be revisited.

There are many in-text references without page numbers.  

It seems the clarity of lines 393-396 in terms of their relevance to the research problem needs to be improved.

The claim that Jesus was a democrat by his culturally friendly teaching as stated in lines 365-375 seems inaccurate. According to Harwerwas, Jesus lived in a counter-culture to the Jewish system.

Reading lines 285-286, it seems the problem that this paper should have addressed is the corruption and inauthenticity of the spiritualities of Zimbabwean religious leaders. The undemocratic practices of both the politicians and religious leaders can be attributed to their compromising on fairness, love, and social order. That has given the political opportunists the chance to offer bad leadership in Zimbabwe.

 

There are a few informal language uses. The word 'avow' has been used a number of times (line 382 for example). Author may consider revisiting its use.

The sentence on  line 198 may have to be restructured.

Author Response

I have attached my responses and revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewers Comments – National Christianity 

It would be important to give your opinion on this issue to give some nuance on this ‘declaration’

 

- “Other researchers such as Moyo (2018), Dzirutwe (2019), Hoyes (2020), Winter (2019) and Keane (2017) highlight that after independence up until the present day, the 205 Religions ruling government under the then president Robert Gabriel Mugabe led the nation into a 206 dictatorship, which endured until his ignominious departure in 2017. Mugabe’s administration ruined Zimbabwe by institutionalizing, protecting, and promoting corruption, maladministration, inconsistent policies, weighty taxation, and faulty rule of law.”

Did the problems of Zimbabwe start right after independence? Are there no opinions that appreciate Mugabe’s rule and administration (at least his initial leadership)? You should engage such different opinions for the nuance. Lack of nuance is a recurring feature of the paper. I tend to think that presenting the other side of an argument does not weaken the point that one is trying to make, quite the contrary, it enriches the discourse

 

It is not clear why it is important to reunite religious leaders – if their existence in Zimbabwe over the decades has not had much impact, is it because they have always been divided? If yes, then we cannot talk of -reuniting’. If they have been united before, I think that an allusion to their impact as a united front of religious leaders should be elaborated upon in a section – it is important to clarify why reuniting them is even important for democracy. This is also important because your introduction suggests that a united front (in words) does not necessarily lead to desirable deeds.

 

What of issues of diversity and respect of those who are non-religious? Will a united religious front respect that? Democracy requires even that. A brief discussion that captures these pertinent issues will enrich the work.

 

The academic conversation within which the paper is located is not clear. The central question (preoccupation of the work) should be seen arising from that conversation. You may want to clearly situate your work within an academic conversation (theoretical lens).

There is virtually no description of the research design and methodology that the researcher employed in carrying out the work. A section on that is required.

The quality of English, but proofreading would improve it.

Author Response

I have attached my responses, and revised manuscript accordingly. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is quite exciting and on an original topic. Having said that, it is written in a very confusing manner. I think the author needs to do some revisions for clarity. These include:

 

1. clarifying the thesis statement in the conclusion and introduction

 

2. Making a clearer link between sections which seem sometimes to be randomly put together. 

 

I also urge the author to engage with some contemporary literature on African philosophy of religion. The author can see the work of Ada Agada (in Philosophy Compass, Religious Studies), Aribiah Attoe (in Filosofia Theoretica) and Ofuasia (in Filosofia Theoretica).

There are problems of clarity. 

Author Response

I have attached my responses and revised manuscript accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf