.jpg?w=1300&resize=1300,540&ssl=1 "Rixi Moncada")
In a political landscape already marked by polarization, the Honduran ruling party’s presidential candidate, Rixi Moncada, sparked new controversy by openly questioning the role of churches in the country. The statements, made during a party rally, provoked immediate reactions from religious leaders and citizens, who described her words as an affront to the historical role of ecclesiastical institutions in Honduran public life.
The incident contributes to a succession of earlier conflicts between the governing party and different social groups, amidst an electoral process characterized by significant ideological differences and increasing scrutiny over the nature of the political discourse.
Phrases at the core of the discussion
During a speech broadcast on social media, Moncada said that churches “remain silent in the face of social injustices” and “are at the service of economic power.” The statements were interpreted as a direct challenge to the role of religious institutions in the Honduran political and social context.
These remarks were swiftly dismissed by leaders from various religious communities. Pastor Marco Tulio López, from the Council of Evangelical Churches, stated that “belief does not bow to political or financial authority.” He cautioned that “what truly brings a country down is animosity pretending to be fairness,” clearly alluding to the stance of the candidate from the governing party.
Within the context of the Catholic environment, Father Luis Javier Mejía, who serves as the representative for the clergy in the capital, voiced his unease regarding what he perceives as the manipulation of religious beliefs in political rhetoric. “The Church stands with the community. It has always been this way. However, we refuse to be utilized as a pawn in campaigns driven by ideology,” he stated.
Citizen reactions and calls for institutional respect
The dispute not only rallied religious authorities but also proliferated significantly across social networks, where numerous individuals called for the preservation of the right to practice one’s faith freely and emphasized the importance of churches as places for community unity and dialogue during crises.
Among the most frequently expressed views was from a political analyst who, via social media platform X, stated: “If a candidate criticizes the beliefs of the populace, it shows more about their lack of tolerance than their policy.”
Facing increasing societal pressure, the Episcopal Conference along with the Evangelical Confraternity released statements urging mutual respect between religious organizations and political figures. In their messages, they stress the significance of avoiding the use of churches as focal points in electoral strategies, especially when people are seeking solutions to the country’s fundamental issues.
An electoral climate marked by confrontation
The clash between the candidate of the ruling party and religious groups is occurring amid a backdrop of escalating aggressive speeches from leaders within the Libertad y Refundación (LIBRE) party, which assumed power in 2022. Political analysts suggest that these remarks are a component of a polarizing strategy intended to bolster the support of the ruling party’s core followers, potentially sacrificing engagement with other social groups.
This ongoing situation has matched the increasing dissatisfaction among citizens regarding enduring structural issues like poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. According to various analysts, the focus on ideological or symbolic discussions is distracting from the public’s primary concerns.
Strain highlights management issues
The debate over the remarks made by Rixi Moncada highlights a wider conflict concerning the role of conventional establishments, like churches, in Honduras’ present political scene. By challenging their function as social intermediaries, the governing party may undermine areas that have traditionally helped in managing disputes and promoting discussion during crises.
In this situation, the episode emphasizes the obstacles confronting the voting process: guaranteeing that the public discussion remains centered on tangible proposals without harming the relationships between critical participants in institutional life. How these conflicts are handled will be crucial for maintaining democratic stability on the path to the elections.