Christian churches in sub-Saharan African nations like Zambia, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo devote significant time, energy and resources to advocating for democratic institutions, alongside their more traditional roles of serving congregants’ spiritual needs and expanding their faith through evangelization.

Why do some churches engage in democratic advocacy? New research shows this is because liberal democracy offers protection from autocratic rulers who may seek control over church activities, particularly education.

“We’re in a situation where liberal democracy is under attack globally,” said Kate Baldwin, associate professor of political science and global affairs at the Yale Jackson School, “and we’re seeing worse outcomes related to human rights and economies. So, the question becomes, ‘What are the forces that can oppose these trends?’”

This inquiry is one of the themes of Baldwin’s new book, Faith in Democracy, published in November by Cambridge University Press. The book draws on evidence from more than 30 countries to show how churches in sub-Saharan Africa are regularly at the forefront of advocacy for political institutions that ensure political leaders are both popularly elected and checks and balances are firmly in place.

The book builds on Baldwin’s expansive research on political accountability — particularly how non-state actors, such as churches and NGOs, interact with the national state to affect development and democracy. It’s a complement to her 2015 book, The Paradox of Traditional Chiefs in Democratic Africa, which examined how traditional leaders interact with the state and how that affects political accountability in rural Africa.

In her new book, Baldwin dives into the role of churches in political advocacy on the African continent, where there are numerous instances of autocratic rule. Increasingly, she said, churches are throwing their support behind liberal democracy to combat potential autocratic oversight of their core activities.

“If churches are engaged in activities that are easier for the state to regulate, such as education, they are concerned that an unchecked ruler could institute regulations that control what they teach or how teachers are appointed,” said Baldwin. “Liberal democracy can provide a form of protection.” She explained that unchecked leaders have few restraints on the decisions they make, while legislatures provide openings for church allies to influence educational policy and judiciaries can ensure educational agreements with the state are respected.

In Africa, a significant portion of schools are overseen by Christian churches; Baldwin estimates there are at least five African nations where churches run more than half of primary schools. But beyond education, she said, churches may back liberal democratic institutions to protect their health centers and other social service activities.

Church support of liberal democracy has not come without resistance. Baldwin said that government leaders have threatened the tax-exempt status of churches and to deny visas to anyone involved with these churches — common tactics for autocratic rulers, she said. “There is concern [from these churches], but I think they are playing the long game and betting on these checks on power.”

In the book, Baldwin makes sure to differentiate between church alignment with liberal democratic institutions and individual political parties — a tactic more commonly seen in the U.S. and Europe, where churches find support in more conservative-leaning parties. She said that party alignments tend to be more “brittle” and have offered little guarantee leaders won’t subsequently attack churches’ autonomy in Africa.

By supporting liberal democracy as a system, Baldwin argues, churches are offering a model for other religious institutions — and perhaps other non-state entities — to protect themselves in places where democracy is under attack.