Who was the chairman of your church’s harvest, fundraising, or social event this weekend? There is a 90% chance the person was a politician or a government official…
And if that is the case, then there is a bigger chance that you might have played a role in “promoting” corruption, the very canker we proudly and loudly condemn.
Across the country, weekends have evolved into a circuit of church harvests, anniversaries, fundraisers, and community events. For politicians such as MPs, Ministers, MMDCs, and public officials, attendance is no longer optional; it is expected and obligatory. Not once. Not twice. Sometimes, up to five events in a single weekend.
At each stop, the script is the same. They are introduced as special guests. Elevated to chairman or chairperson. Then the unspoken obligation kicks in. They are expected to make the biggest donation in the room.
From Honour to Financial Pressure
But it wasn’t always like this. There was a time when chairing a church event was about dignity, not the money per se. Chairpersons were respected elders or devoted members, individuals chosen for their wisdom, not their wallets.
Their role was to guide proceedings, lend credibility, and give the occasion a sense of grace. Today, that tradition has been quietly replaced.
Now, the chair is often reserved for those perceived to have deep pockets, often politicians and public officials. And with that comes an expectation that has little to do with faith and everything to do with finance.
The result is what we see now: a growing culture where public office is subtly tied to constant financial display.
The Hidden Cost of “Generosity”
Let’s be honest and face the reality. The salaries of political figures, especially ministers, MPs, MMDCEs, etc., are public knowledge.
Their salaries cannot sustain this level of weekly “generosity.” Yet, the expectations remain relentless. Bigger events demand bigger donations. Louder applause follows larger cheques.
So how do they keep up? That is where the problem begins.
When the pressure to give exceeds legitimate means, the temptation to cut corners increases. Questionable deals. Inflated contracts. Quiet kickbacks. Not always because individuals set out to be corrupt, but because the system around them quietly demands more than they can honestly provide.
In trying to meet societal expectations, some cross ethical lines just to keep up appearances.
The Hypocrisy
Here lies the irony. The same crowd that erupts in applause when a politician donates generously at a church harvest is often the first to express outrage when that same individual is later linked to corruption.
This is a case of celebrating the giving, but ignoring the source. We demand generosity, but question integrity only after the fact.
As many people who abhor the act put it, it is a cycle of applause and amnesia. And in that cycle, society becomes both the cheerleader and the critic, without acknowledging its own role in shaping the outcome.
Time for a Rethink
This is not an argument against giving. Nor is it a criticism of churches or generosity. It is a call for reflection. Should public officials be expected to outgive everyone at every event?
Should leadership roles at social gatherings be tied to financial capacity? Are we, as a society, creating standards that are simply unsustainable and potentially harmful?
Because if the expectations remain unchanged, the outcomes will likely remain the same.
The Bottomline
Corruption does not exist in isolation. It thrives in environments where pressure, expectations, and opportunity intersect.
And sometimes, those pressures are not imposed by systems of government alone—but by everyday social norms.
So the next time a politician is invited to chair an event, and the room waits expectantly for a “big donation,” it may be worth pausing to consider:
