The first in a five-part series on the ANC and religion. Religion is a helpful metaphor for understanding the ANC’s political ideology and, in particular, for better understanding the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. Each of the five posts will explore this idea. Today, we start with an introduction.
THE REAL ANC TODAY – Volume: 1; Issue: 15.
• INTRODUCTION
• THE ANC AND RELIGION: PART 1
Yesterday, the Independent Newspaper group ran a story about an address made by ANC President Jacob Zuma to the residents of Soweto, ahead of the Soweto Marathon – the headline of which (at least, with regards to the IOL version) was: ‘Crowd raises Zuma to status of a deity’.
It opened with the following sentence:
“Jacob Zuma has become a god. The people said it. Even the preacher claimed it.”
Elaborating, later on, it stated:
“…one of the many preachers stood up for devotions to signal the start of the rally, which was aimed at encouraging voter registration for the 2009 elections. ‘(Zuma) has not been selected by the people only,’ the man told the huge crowd. ‘Anyone who fights him is fighting Nkulunkulu (the Supreme Being) personally,’ he said to murmurs of assent in the crowd.”
It is a remarkable sentiment – the idea that Jacob Zuma is endorsed by God and the implications inherent in it – but it is certainly not a new one; and forms part of a pattern of behaviour typified by the ANC more generally and epitomised by the politics of Jacob Zuma in particular. The Real ANC Today has looked at the way in which religion has fused with the ANC President’s political philosophy in a previous story on this issue but, with an election looming (normally the time Zuma evokes religion), it is worth undertaking a more detailed examination of the phenomenon.
Thus, each of next five posts on The Real ANC Today will address this issue in some depth. Together the five posts comprise a single essay on the ANC and religion, the central thesis of which is that religion is a helpful metaphor for understanding the ANC’s political ideology and, in particular, for better understanding the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. The five different posts – each one of which constitutes a different section of the full essay – are as follows:
1. Introduction
2. The ANC and Religion
3. Thabo Mbeki and the Truth
4. Jacob Zuma and God
5. Conclusion
The essay from which the posts are drawn was written in May 2008, when Thabo Mbeki was still President.
We start with the introduction, which sets out the argument in broad terms, on which I will elaborate in the next four posts.
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
An essay on the ANC, religion, and the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma
By: Gareth van Onselen
“There cannot be a clearer mark of the progress of liberty of thought than the contrast between the world views of science and religion, nor of the hard-won nature of that progress than the struggle to liberate the former from the latter. Liberty of thought is the essence of enquiry, and free enquiry produces a conception of the universe totally different from any that thinks the world was created as a theatre for the moral and spiritual destiny of humankind by anthropocentric gods. The story of science is also the story of the struggle by religious orthodoxy to retain control over how the universe is to be seen, and where the limits of legitimate enquiry lie. To make science possible, religion’s claim to hegemony over the mind had to be broken.” [1] [J. Youlton]
Introduction
Although the central thesis of this essay revolves around the relationship between the African National Congress’s nationalism and religion (and by religion, I mean monotheistic religion), it does not presuppose that such a relationship does not exist between other political philosophies and religion; only that this particular relationship is often profound, its consequences damaging and, by identifying and trying to understand it, I hope, fairly illuminating.
This essay also makes use of fairly broad brushstrokes in an attempt to define the argument in general terms. This might well have the effect of suggesting that the ANC’s particular brand of African nationalism is uniform, coherent and consistent across all its members. In reality, though, this is obviously not the case and, no doubt, there are individuals within the ruling party who do not fully subscribe to the particular political philosophy I describe in this argument. Significantly, however, there are individuals in the ANC for whom this description is entirely accurate and, in extreme cases, even understated. I would argue it is this second group of people who represent both the majority of ANC members and, perhaps more importantly, those who occupy the most powerful positions in the party. As these are the people most likely to influence South Africa, it is around their world view that this argument is shaped.
The argument in a nutshell
“Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.” [2] [George Orwell]
“Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals or groups (or tribes or states or nations or churches) that he or she or they are in sole possession of the truth: especially about how to live, what to be and do – and those who differ from them are not merely mistaken but wicked or mad and need restraining or suppressing. It is a terrible and dangerous arrogance to believe that you alone are right, have a magical eye which sees the truth and that others cannot be right if they disagree.” [3] [Isaiah Berlin]
So central to South Africa’s current affairs is the unfolding drama between the President of the country and the President of the ruling party that to simply place their names next to each other – Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki – is to invoke a fundamental sense of the opposite, hostility and conflict. For if the one is day then the other, surely, is night; if the one is white, the other, black. At least, that is the perception that exists: two opposing forces locked in battle; ultimately, irreconcilable.
Yet it is by no means a futile exercise to consider the many things which these two central protagonists have in common, for they are often overlooked and rarely considered. Indeed, a compelling argument can be made that their many underlying similarities far outweigh their more public differences.
Both men are fervent nationalists, steeped in Leninist/Stalinist orthodoxy and both are absolutely loyal, first and foremost, to the African National Congress. It is true that these underlying commonalities play themselves out in different ways – Zuma is a populist who leans to the left; Mbeki, a reserved centralist, quite capable of a certain type of elitism – but one could argue these are more a reflection of their particular personalities, as opposed to their political philosophy which, at least in fundamental terms, is dictated by the ruling party, its history and its particular brand of black African nationalism.
Mysteriously perhaps – given the extent to which it so often manifests in the ruling party’s political rhetoric – the parallels between monotheistic religion and nationalism have not enjoyed much proper analysis or debate in South Africa. Yet it is a revealing comparison to make and a background against which it is far easier to understand much of the implicit and understated reasoning behind nationalist thinking in general, and these two Presidents’ thinking in particular.
And a central pillar of such a comparison would be the moral absolutism that defines both types of movement. For the religious zealot, it is the belief that he or she alone knows the truth and that his or her moral code constitutes the ultimate set of values and principles. In much the same fashion, the fervent nationalist believes absolutely that only he or she is able accurately to describe and understand the world, both past and present, and thus, by default, that his or her political programme constitutes not only the best but the ‘true’ and only possible course of action.
‘The truth’, then, for both the nationalist and the religious believer, is not ambiguous or relative but absolute, objectively knowable and definitive. This belief is particularly evident in the writings of President Thabo Mbeki and will form one component of this essay.
Of course, it is only possible to know ‘the truth’ if one believes, ultimately, that there is some unspoken power behind it; for intrinsic to the idea of an absolute truth, is the notion of perfection, and that is the kernel from which many religious beliefs have grown. And if, for Mbeki, this parallel plays itself out implicitly, in the way in which he stubbornly refuses to accept any reality outside of his own then, for Jacob Zuma – an openly religious man – it plays itself out in far more explicit terms: an open and public belief that the ANC (and even Zuma himself) is endorsed by God, and destined to govern until the end of days. This, then, forms the second component of this essay.
And yet that is not to separate the two as different or divorced – they are, in fact, one and the same thing; only the one is subtle and implied while the other is explicitly stated. Zuma’s belief in God is only the vehicle he uses to justify the exact same belief Mbeki holds true – that the ANC is the only true democratic force in the country, that it rules by right and that its understanding of South Africa, its people and its problems is the only correct, true and accurate one.
Both manifestations are, of course, profoundly undemocratic. A monopoly on the truth not only stifles – indeed, shuts down – debate, but works to undermine other principles and values that should define any democratic state.
Consider the role of civil society, for example. Many independent institutions are designed to reinforce accountability and provide additional expertise in those areas where the state is insufficient or faces a significant challenge. If, however, the state (under the control of the ruling party) acts like only it can identify and respond to reality appropriately, then those independent institutions are faced with an unfair choice: either to submit to the dominant orthodoxy, or to stand in opposition to it. In an ideal world, of course, they should complement the state. (Indeed, the nationalist often seeks to centralise the state itself and constrain even internal autonomy – a defining characteristic of the ANC government under Mbeki.)
With regards to the more fundamental manifestation – the idea that the ruling party governs by divine right – the implications are fairly straightforward and equally destructive: opposition is deemed illegitimate and the possibility of a change in power fundamentally undermined. Significantly, the nationalist’s party is elevated above criticism. As Zuma himself has argued, the ANC can never be at fault, only those (fallible) human beings who serve it. The party and its political programme are perfectly conceived. This, too, is deeply problematic.
This then forms the central thesis to this paper: an examination of the ANC’s moral (and political) absolutism in general and how it manifests in the politics of Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki in particular, as well as its consequences.
A final point by way of introduction: Any discussion about religion is fraught with sensitivity. Religion is often regarded (mostly by those who are religious themselves) as a terrain exempt from critique and analysis, unburdened by the requirements of considered reasoning and, by its subjective nature, self-contained and internally coherent – and, thus, beyond scrutiny. That, however, is a deeply illiberal idea. Just as any other belief (be it political, economic or cultural) is open to examination, so is religion.
This essay is not designed to critique religion. Nevertheless, I make this point only because I do not wish for my argument to be dismissed on the grounds that it may run contrary to religious belief and in the hope that the evidence I present will be considered on its merits, and not dismissed out of hand because of the context in which it appears.
ENDNOTES
[1] J. Youlton; Philosophy, Religion and Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries [1990]; quoted in A.C. Grayling; Towards the Light; [Bloomsbury; 2007]; pg 59.
[2] See G. Orwell; Notes on Nationalism; [May 1945]
[3] This quote is drawn from a letter penned by Berlin to a friend, in 1981, in which he tries to understand what motivates people to commit violence. He makes three major points, I have quoted the first, which concludes later: “Compromising with people with whom you don’t sympathize or altogether understand is indispensable to any decent society; nothing is more destructive than a happy sense of one’s own – or one’s nation’s – infallibility, which lets you destroy others with a quiet conscience because you are doing God’s (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition or the Ayatollas) or the superior race’s (e.g. Hitler) or History’s (e.g. Lenin-Stalin) work. …” He cites stereotypes and nationalism as the two other major factors.
Filed under: Governance, Nationalism, Religion, Undemocratic behaviour | Tagged: Divine Right, Nationalism, Religion, Truth
On the subject of ‘Religion’. The Bible says we must pray for our leaders and governments. I, and I believe like many Christians, have been praying for our leaders and government, and also praying against corruption and all the other injustices taking place and also for people in government, local and national to stand up for what they believe in. When Lekota and Shilowa took a stand, I could not help but realise that God DOES answer prayers, even if something seems humanly impossible. Now we have to pray even more than before, BELIEVING that God’s will will prevail in this country if Christians will continue to pray for our country and government.
‘The Lord is sovereign and ultimately in control’.
If God is using the corrupt incumbents responsible for the atrocities of the nationalist ANC regime to deliver us from the thugs of the post-Polokwane ANC; He truly works in mysterious ways.
I rather think that CoPe reveals to citizens that the ANC is not unassailable, unquestionable, nor ordained by God. It actually highlights how self-serving and self-righteous its members are. But God helps those who help themselves.
CoPe represents the possibility of dissent. It is not in itself an alternative to the ANC, for their fundamental disregard for individual liberty and humanity remain. CoPe is a step towards citizen-driven government free from the shackles of patronage where universal dignity, liberty, and prosperity guarantee freedom, unity and security.
We won the battle against apartheid. Now is the time to eradicate national socialism.
Dear Pam and Lionel
Thank you for your comments. Lionel, you obviously are quite favourable towards COPE. That, of course, is your right. But I think one must be careful to attribute too much to COPE, because many of the points you make – the idea of an alternative and a rights based society – have long ago been made the DA.
Certainly the DA is a far better established alternative than COPE – and one with a real chance of winning (particularly in the Western Cape) and offering an alterrnative government. The DA vision of an Open Opportunity Society for All is also far more realistic than any policy proposal COPE will be able to offer, simply because it already exists in a series of well thought out and careful researched policy alternatives, based on a consistent set of values and principles.
Gareth
Perhaps I was too subtle.
The COPE are the corrupt incumbents ready to scuttle the ship of the ANC to continue their political careers. They do not disagree with the ANC in any meaningful way except that they no longer are able to call the shots. They epitomize the self-serving corruption that is today’s ANC. They haven’t fooled the ANC, but they seem to have fooled the hopeless.
The plebeians are desperate for change, but are held back by a destructive brand-loyalty to the party that stole the liberation credentials. COPE represents a transition point that none of the other “liberation” movements and successive break-away movements have successfully managed. Breaking with the ANC to COPE is seen as less traitorous than the fundamental shift required to join the DA (also a liberation movement, but with exclusively non-violent credentials and thus none of the respect one gains for violently murdering dissenters).
You see, COPE lives up to its name. The acronym for the Congress of the People is CoPe (‘kɒpiː) which is as near a homonym to “copy” (‘kɒpɪ) as one gets. While it doesn’t actually provide a political alternative, it does provide a safe half-way house to leave the ANC that doesn’t agitate peoples’ loyalty reflex too much. The fantastic thing about a small change is that changing again is so much easier. Just ask the Nats after their shenanigans with first the DA and then ANC and the resultant attrition in support. The big winners are all the opposition parties who in the medium term will find new supporters. Once you leave, you seldom go back – hearsay, but I’m sure a bright fella like you can find some research on the truth of this.
I currently support the DA because their vision is closer to a truly free society governed sensibly by competent people, than anyone else. But I am prepared to drop them the moment they stop working for my support, or someone appears who is closer to my political vision of a humanist society where the biggest (and smallest) group is an individual and dignity, liberty and justice rule.
The real game of liberty is teaching people that their vote is a currency for freedom and not a pledge of allegiance. Keep rendering a service or I take my currency elsewhere. Even churches have had to learn to deal with this new spirit of liberated consumerism.
Dear Lionel
Thank you for your comment.
You certainly have some interesting observations on COPE. It will be of great interest to see how they do in the upcoming election. I am glad to hear that you support the DA, and I would hope that we continue you do enough to maintain your support. You make an important point about the significance of voting and the high number of people who registered to vote, during the last IEC registration weekend, is encouraging indeed. The more people who actively participate in a democracy, the stronger it is.
Gareth
The only good thing I can see with COPE is that it might draw votes away from the ANC, maybe enabling SA to become a real democracy instead of the ONE party state that it became after 1994, mind you before 1994 SA was also a one party state for many years.
The ideal would be when no one party rules with an absolute majority because as they say “Absolute power corrupts absoluteley” There need to be a balance where NO party can make or break as it wishes as is currently the state of affairs in SA. A good example is the “Blue light bullies” in Natal, they are a direct result from the ruling party having absolute power and abusing that power to the point that they are considering themselves to be above the county’s laws endangering the very people which they are supposed to serve.
It remains to be seen whether the masses are going to remember the broken promises of 1994, 1999 and 2004 or if they are going to be persuaded to make their crosses at the same previous place after receiving the same empty promises and the only tangible thing which thus far has been T-shirts. I never thought a vote could be bought with a T-shirt!
If the current situation is allowed to continue SA will end up just like Zimbabwe where a person thinks it is his right to rule and blame all of his dismal failures on the West, Brittain, USA etc, etc.
Dear Neels
The next few months will certainly be interesting, as everyone gets to assess just what COPE is all about and what sort of an impact it will have. Your point about the problems which manifest when a single party has too much power are, of course, important. But don’t forget, for all its electoral size, the DA has acted as a very powerful counterweight to the ANC, not just politically and in parliament but in terms of governance: together with a coalition of smaller parties it governs the largest metropole in the country, as well as on some 25 other municipalities across the country and there is a very real chance the DA will win the Western Cape next year as it continues to grow. The DA is a very real alternative to the ANC, certainly I believe to be the best alternative.
Democracies take time to find their true form and, with regards to South Africa, one has to take a slightly longer term view. Don’t forget the DP (the DA’s successor) got just 1.7% of the vote in 1994, just under 10% in 1999 and just under 13% in 2004. In 2009 there is every reason to believe it will grow further. At the other end of the spectrum, the ANC has lost almost 2 million votes since 1994. Seen in those terms, there is clearly a longer term trend in South Africa, away from the ANC and towards the DA. As Helen said in a speech a few weeks ago, whether that trend continues or picks up speed is up to South Africans, only they have the ability to the chose their own future.
Sincerely,
Gareth
Gareth, your response is encouraging and I agree with you, I have seen the DA grown in the last 15 years. It were not for the DA I shudder to think what might have happened.
I am glad you have mentioned the magic word “coalition” which is as far as I’m concerned crucial for any democracy to functioning properly. A coalition ensures that no individual or party gets his way all of the time, which is after all what a democracy is all about.
Furthermore we all need to stop thinking along racial lines when voting.
A worrying trend is although we need a variety of parties to represent all of the different views in SA, there are a large number of these small parties which have almost the same goal, yet because everybody wants to be “king in his own castle”, most of these parties only manage to get an insignificant amount of votes, whereas if they could manage to form a coalition they will be able to get their message to a much broader voter base ensuring a proper counterweight to the ANC. One only have to look at what happened to the world when the Soviet Union ceased to exist removing the only counterwight to the USA.
Dear Neels
I think you are onto something very important: the need for like-minded parties to work together to bring the ANC down to size. This is a message the DA has been conveying for sometime and, perhaps now more than ever, holds true today.
But the key word in that sentence in ‘like-minded’ and I am not sure I agree with you that, in general terms, the majority of smaller parties share the same vision and purpose that drives the DA. Some of them do, but not all of them. A lot them are very sympathetic towards the ANC and their values and principles more closely aligned with the ruling party’s vision, than with the DA’s. Nevetheless, where possible, parties should aim to work together for the greater good and on that score, you and I are in agreement.
We agree too on the need for South Africans to stop voting along racial lines. Political parties must accept some of the responsibility for that. And the DA certainly does. They must act and be seen to fairly represent the interests of all South Africans. But voters must also take some responsibility and listen to what is actually being said, rather than simply dismissing an idea or position out of hand, on the basis of who said it.
Sincerely,
Gareth