The second 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 part of the five posts will explore this idea. Today, we bring you part 2 – a look at the general relationship between religion, the ANC and African nationalism.
Related Stories:
• Beyond the Will of Mortal Men
• The ANC and Religion: Part 1
THE REAL ANC TODAY – Volume: 1; Issue: 16.
* INTRODUCTION
* THE ANC AND RELIGION: PART 2
Today we bring you the second in our series of five posts on the relationship between the ANC and religion. 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.
Today’s post looks at the more general relationship between the ANC, African nationalism and religion.
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
An essay on the ANC, religion, and the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma
By: Gareth van Onselen
The ANC and religion
“Those who say the ANC is atheist are simply wrong. Practicing their different rituals, clad in different clothes, citing separate songs and scriptures, ANC supporters may seem divided, but in our struggle for liberation and transformation they share a belief in God and support a common political platform. Through their calls upon Jehovah, Jesus, Thixo, Allah, Umvelinqangi, Krishna, Modimo, or the teaching of the Buddha, Bahula, or Marx, similar themes emerge. We are all spiritual people, even though we are not all religious. We recognise a supreme driving force of goodness, success, and hope in the heart of the human community which does liberate and does transform. We have seen it happen. The ANC believes that Faith and Politics go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin. We believe that the African world view of religion as an inclusive factor of life is accurate: ubuntu is a holistic view of life in the whole community. It is spiritual politics.” [1] [ANC Today]
“Transformation extends spiritual understanding from the religious world to the whole secular creation. It recognises that spiritual strength lies in human communities as such, and not necessarily in religious institutions. The RDP of the Soul which moves us from the Liberation to the Transformation of our society is a secular activity of the spirit of ordinary people, not reserved as a religious activity for saints. Its proclamation and practice by some transformed experienced progressive religious and theological people is a huge bonus.” [2] [The RDP of the Soul]
With the advent of the ‘modern’ state and the rise of nationalism, the longstanding relationship between politics and religion has come to take a very particular form. For Hegel, the state was “God on earth”; nationalism is certainly more complex than that, but it is fair to say that they (religion and nationalism) reflect and complement each other in a number of important respects.
Perhaps most significantly, both the nationalist and religious zealot see themselves as the central role players in a grand meta-narrative and their respective movements as the (specially chosen) vehicle through which a final and ideal outcome is to be realised.
(It is, of course, one thing to embrace a particular belief in your personal capacity; quite another to impose it on others – the primary reason behind the principle of divorcing politics from religion and, in turn, the personal from the public. For the nationalist, however, this distinction becomes blurred. In its most virulent form, nationalism will adopt a particular religion as part of its mythology entirely, while a less fundamental movement might simply see itself as a parallel but equal social force. The ANC tends towards the latter, rather than the former.)
Inherent in this idea are a number of others. Chief among these is the notion that, because both the nationalist and the religious zealot are chosen, in the diametric world they occupy they are ‘good’ and their respective beliefs ‘true’ and paramount; and, by default, any belief which stands in opposition to their own is intrinsically false and ‘evil’. Nor is it enough simply to accept any opposing belief as flawed and corrupt, it must also be actively defeated. A moral quality is attached to opinion – anything that is not good, must be bad – and, by merely existing, any opposing view is evil (or at least, morally wrong) and evil must be sought out and destroyed.
And so it is that both religious zealots and fervent nationalists seek out opposition to their respective beliefs and act to end their influence on society. I have exaggerated somewhat for effect (perhaps less so with regard to religious zealots) but, in broad terms, the principle is accurate and the accompanying attitude is certainly prevalent in the ANC’s policy and practice.
The ANC, like most nationalist organisations, enjoys a strong bond with religion, although in a more generic form than its President’s fervently proclaimed Christianity. In fact, that relationship was formalised in 1995 with the establishment of ‘The ANC Commission for Religious Affairs’ – an inter-faith organisation that “has a spiritual function which, includes a chaplaincy; a political function which relates spiritual and theological insights to current issues; and a religious function in promoting understanding and cooperation with religious bodies”.[3] And almost every ANC President, from Albert Luthuli to Oliver Tambo, to Nelson Mandela (the first person to advocate for an ‘RDP of the soul’) has, at one time or another, invoked, encouraged and used religion as a central metaphor around which to articulate and on which to base the ANC’s political programme.[4] When religion is not used explicitly by the ANC, it lurks beneath the surface, seeping into its policy and subtly informing its political thought.
The preamble to the ANC’s Constitution states: “the ANC has emerged to lead the struggle of all democratic and patriotic forces to destroy the apartheid state and replace it with a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic South Africa…”[5]
That one sentence captures the diametric nature of the ANC almost absolutely. On the one side there is the ANC – a force for good – on the other, the apartheid state – a force for evil. Also, the ANC is not simply one of many “democratic forces” in the country, it is the leading such force (implying a moral hierarchy). The idea of the apartheid state also serves another diametric purpose: as a counterpoint against which the ANC’s vision – of “a united, non racial, non-sexist and democratic South Africa” – can be juxtaposed. Again, the one is evil, the other good. And so the grand narrative is established.
It is important to understand exactly what I am saying here: any Constitutional democratic order will struggle to facilitate a political party that believes it is primary and, by first principles, the epitome of those democratic ideals and values which define that particular order. I am not interrogating the ANC’s commitment to democracy (that is a subject for another paper), nor am I suggesting apartheid and the apartheid state was not an evil aberration. It was. I am saying that the ANC’s defining vision is diametric and articulated and understood in absolute terms, and that this is a dangerous way to conceive of a political party in a democratic and Constitutional state. It might well have served a historic purpose, when the ANC was engaged in a fundamental war with the forces of apartheid; however, in a democracy, with a Constitution at its centre, it is deeply problematic.
And it is problematic for the simple reason that the apartheid state no longer exists. For any political party which has a set of values as its first principles, this is not a problem; for values do not exist in their pure form in the real world – their attainment is a constant, shifting goal towards which one can always strive. But if your core value is opposition to a very real and tangible reality, and that reality is removed or destroyed, then, in effect, you come to exist in a vacuum, with no yardstick against which your political programme can be measured. One’s very purpose for existing is fundamentally undermined. For both the fervent nationalist and the religious zealot, good cannot exist without bad.
Thus, as the apartheid state has been dismantled and its edifice diluted and washed away, so the ANC has been forced to re-invent ‘the demon’ of racism as a central and eminent threat to our democracy, and the evil against which it must both fight and justify its existence. It has simply substituted, exaggerated and conflated the one, generic racism, for the other, apartheid. For, as its Constitution illustrates, central to its ‘historic mission’ is the struggle against apartheid. Remove that, and the ANC’s core mission is denuded. Just as religion needs evil to exist, so the ANC needs racism.
Within this context, the ANC’s seemingly illogical attachment to something like floor crossing, for example, makes perfect sense. Apart from the built-in logistical advantages it provides the ruling party, it also serves a means of conversion, a chance for those who have strayed from the path to be redeemed and welcomed back into the fold. The list of ‘converts’ is long and impressive, from the most outspoken supporters of apartheid (I think, for example, of Pik Botha[6]) to the myriad of amorphous, middle-ground politicians with no discernable identity. Black public representatives, in particular, when wooed by the ANC, are told to ‘come home’, back to the only authentic and ‘true’ party able to represent their interests. Floor crossing makes perfect sense in the context of the religious undertones that define the ANC.
Similarly, it explains the ruling party’s hesitation in holding those members guilty of corruption or of having committed a crime to account, choosing rather to forgive and forget. The ANC has never believed that accountability (in the liberal sense) is a necessary cornerstone for a healthy democracy or an efficient government. And not just with regards to action against its own members, but with regard to the concept of the electorate itself. For example, the will of the ANC’s members (“the people”) is conflated with the will of all South Africans; the state is treated like an extension of the party, rather than a separate entity defined by a different set of principles. And – even in the face of gross misconduct – forgiveness is not only embraced ahead of accountability, but the two options are presented as mutually exclusive [7] (in practical terms, one cannot be fired and forgiven, for to fire someone is, as far as the ANC is concerned, to condemn them, and that is unacceptable).
Its ambiguous identity, floating as it does half way between a political party and a revolutionary movement, means that it acts more like an all-encompassing, all-powerful religious entity – “a broad church”, to quote the party itself – as opposed to an accountable organisation with a particular constituency.
It also explains the ANC’s unwavering drive for complete hegemony, and its negative attitude towards the principles of a balance of power and a two or multi-party state – just as the religious zealot seeks to convert all to its cause, so the ANC believes that, only when all citizens support the ruling party, will it be possible to exist in a truly democratic South Africa (Mbeki said during the 2004 election campaign, for example, that he was seeking 100 percent of the vote [8]). And so every element of South African society is subjected to the dominant orthodoxy and the personal becomes the public:
“Nationalism… like millennialism, seeks to abolish the distinction between the private and public domains; nationalism, like millennialism, seeks to institute a new morality of absolute purity and brotherhood; nationalism separates its devotees in the movement from the crowd much as millennialism elevates its virtuous elect; and, like millennialism, nationalism renounces earthly pleasures to achieve through struggle its goal of justice on earth. Both are revolutionary rather than reformist doctrines and both seek a radical break with a corrupt and oppressive past.” [9]
The consequences of this, and of the ruling party’s inability to accept ideas outside of its own paradigm, have been dire: a radically re-racialised South Africa in which “the ANC believes its political programme is the only legitimate course around which South Africa’s future can be shaped” [10].
The central tenet of the ANC’s political philosophy is ‘transformation’ – an elusive, ill-defined and all-encompassing idea around which the ANC bases its policy, and through which it justifies its decisions. Just as most religions centre around a key text, so the ANC relies on, and is informed by, transformation.
It is not the purpose of this essay to provide a full and detailed critique of transformation, only to flag it as significant to this argument in one very particular way:
Despite being undefined and all-encompassing in abstract terms, transformation is not without moral weight. Indeed, the ANC has ensured it constitutes the fundamental moral test for any individual or institution. In much the same way that the ruling party’s broader attitude often forces institutions to choose whether they are for or against the ANC, so transformation is used to define individuals and institutions in moral terms: those who support transformation are progressive and democratic; those who oppose it are ‘counter-revolutionary’ and yearn for a return to the apartheid state. Transformation is the moral litmus test with which the ANC measures a person or institution’s democratic credentials. But, much like religion, transformation itself – that is its principles and consequences – are not open for debate (the Bible, for example, is regarded by the religious zealot as a perfect moral code, its ambiguities, inconsistencies and moral pitfalls are not subject to rational consideration, nevertheless, absolute commitment to it constitutes the fundamental moral test for the fervent Christian). It represents, perhaps, the ultimate false choice.
The lack of a coherent definition means that transformation can function both as a policy programme – a practical set of steps – and, perhaps far more disturbingly, as an attitude; and, just as an institution can be transformed, for the ANC, so can an individual (it often invokes the Stalinist idea of a “new man”). In broad terms the criteria for such a transformation are fairly easy to identify: if you are white, you must accept that by living in apartheid South Africa you were complicit in it, you must renounce racism and, critically, you must embrace the ANC. If you are black, you must accept that the ANC liberated you from apartheid and represents the only true and authentic political movement able to protect, promote and fight for your interests – not on the basis of its policy programmes, but on race, and on the fact that it is a party constituted, first and foremost, for black Africans.
Thus, the parallels between religion and the ANC’s nationalism are plain to see. Both construct reality around themselves as the central force in the grand narrative that is history. Both believe they exist (and, in the case of a political party, govern) by right. Both exist in opposition to something evil, the one defining the other. As a result of these first three beliefs, both see themselves as the only legitimate force for good and thus, the only force able to identify, describe, understand and react to reality. In short, both believe they have a monopoly on ‘the truth’. Implicit in this is the idea that there is such a thing a ‘the truth’ – that is, a single, objective, knowable and definitive reality untainted by subjective considerations. Both seek to, on the one hand, actively convert those who oppose them to their cause and, on the other hand, shut down opposition entirely. And, both have a key text or belief, which they use as a moral litmus test and guide as to how they should act.
Let us look at two of these aspects and how they relate to Presidents Mbeki and Zuma, starting with President Mbeki and ‘the truth’.
ENDNOTES
[1] See ANC Today [Vol. 4, No. 17, 30 May - 6 April 2004]; “Theological Comment: A manifesto for people of faith”. The article printed was as an edited version of a longer article that appeared in the April 2004 edition of Phakamani, an occasional magazine published by the ANC Commission for Religious Affairs.
[2] See The RDP of the Soul; a commissioned report prepared for the ANC’s June 2007 National Policy Conference, ahead of its 52nd national conference held in December 2007.
[3] See the document The ANC and Religion; produced by the ANC Commission for Religious Affairs [undated]. The document states that, “The inter-faith ANC Commission for Religious Affairs (CRA) was established by the NEC in December 1995″ and advocates, among other things, that, “The ANC knows that people in all parts of society can follow high ideals even at the cost of self-sacrifice. That is why the ANC believes in a transformed society, with a revolutionary morality. It is a matter of faith.”
[4] For example, Oliver Tambo told the world council of churches that “The African National Congress has a long history of association with the Church. Our founders were churchmen and women. Throughout our 75 years that link has never been broken” [Statement at the World Council of Churches, Liberation Movement Dialogue, Lusaka; 5 May 1987] – a statement which bears close resemblance to Jacob Zuma’s more recent pronouncement that, “God expects us to rule this country because we are the only organisation which was blessed by pastors when it was formed. It is even blessed in Heaven”.
[5] See African National Congress Constitution, as amended and adopted at the 52nd National Conference; [Polokwane, 2007]. The full quote reads: “Whereas in the course of fulfilling this historic aim, the ANC has emerged to lead the struggle of all democratic and patriotic forces to destroy the apartheid state and replace it with a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic South Africa in which the people as a whole shall govern and all shall enjoy equal rights”.
[6] When Botha first sought to join the ruling party, ANC spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama was quoted as saying: “They are being converted. Even our slave-masters, like Pik Botha, they are getting converted by the wisdom of the former slaves”; see New York Times; [16 January 2000]; “Trying to leap across the politics of race”.
[7] The debate on Speaker of the National Assembly Baleka Mbete’s decision to send off Tony Yengeni outside Pollsmoor prison provides a good example. Defending the Speaker, ANC MP Annelize van Wyk stated, “Does the DA also want us to change the Constitution so that we ignore the rights of those who are convicted in our country? Do they want us to change the philosophy behind Correctional Services? Why include rehabilitation in the principles of Correctional Services if what they really want is that we ban those who have made mistakes in their lives to the fringes of society, never to be allowed to play a productive role in society ever again? We in the ANC will never allow that to happen. Our freedom, respect for human dignity and human rights, our belief in values of ubuntu, Christianity, and humanity will not allow us, instead it will be our driving force, our beacon to achieve a caring society, a society that treats all equal and with compassion”. Van Wyk misrepresents the DA but, nevertheless, the emphasis on forgiveness over accountability is clear to see. See HANSARD; National Assembly; [12 September 2006]; “Debate on the conduct of the Speaker”.
[8] Addressing 5 000 strong crowd in Sekhukhune, during the 2004 election campaign, Mbeki stated: “I want to hear that here there will be a 100% vote on April 14 for the ANC”. For more, see The Star; [29 March 2004]; “I want a 100% vote for the ANC – Mbeki”. Jacob Zuma too, has expressed this sort of sentiment. During the same election campaign he told a crowd, “The ANC will win, all we want is to raise the numbers, the percentage.” (See The Star; [15 March 2004]; “Zuma says his party wants an even bigger majority”.)
[9] See A.D. Smith; Nationalism and Modernism; [Routledge, London, 1998]; pg 110.
[10] See Speech by Tony Leon MP; [22 August 2007]; “A truth that’s told with bad intent”. Leon continues, “An analysis of that political programme, however, reveals a series of decisions that compromise our collective potential as a country. And, because the ANC holds it to be the only true course and above criticism, it cannot properly respond or change direction when that programme of action fails in any given respect; choosing rather to denigrate its opponents and obscure rational debate in favour of an emotional appeal to race and history.”
Filed under: Governance, Nationalism, Religion, Undemocratic behaviour | Tagged: Monotheism, Nationalism, Racism, Reason, Religion, Truth
There should be no link between politics and religion. There is also no link between politics and what motorcar one is driving, restaurants where one eats, or shops one visits etc. Politics must only give the freedom for everyone to practise one’s individual beliefs and lifestyle. By promoting a certain religion or belief may be very dangerous and short sighted. Politics may alienate certain members who do not belief in a certain religion, who are perhaps agnostic, atheist or anything else for that matter. Apartheid was supported by religion, and religion supported apartheid – and it was wrong. Does that make sense???
Dear Skeptic
I think your comment does make sense. There is perhaps another another distinction one could make, which might help clarify your point – and that is the distinction between party politics and the nature of the state. It is one thing for a politician to hold a series of religious convictions (or even a party) in their personal capacity but quite another when it tries to impose those values onto the state (and, by default, onto other people). Zuma often blurs that line and that, in my opinion, is where the problem lies.
Gareth
Utter crap, Firstly the word apartheid is British it was first used by the Times in UK to describe the only attempt to get the black population of South Africa to participate in the wealth of the new republic. It was called Separate Developement a demand of all 3 Paramount chiefs of the only local tribes to inhabit South Africa by 1820.only KOI & SAN are indigenous.
Matanzima, Xhosa, Dalendyebo,Pondo, Buthalezi,
Erik Louw, PW Botha represented white South Africa at the 1st. indaba in the Transvaal. The black leadership demanded, & a National party governmanrt gave them every demand, the first of which was no cross cohabitation, Job reservation, Self Government in traditional tribal areas, labour intense industry to be sent to homelands, build 50000 schools, provide free education to black children. 2010 was to be a target date for the formation of a confederation as the USSA. Prior to the National Party election win of 1948 under British rule, every shop had 2 entrances, Black /White every park bench was sign posted black or white, blacks sat only at the back of white busses, blacks were not allowed to see a movie, drink liquor, walk in white streets after 6 PM when a huge siren was sounded. Blacks caught in white towns after curfew were imprisoned at hard labour by armed guards. The native population were treated like vermin by the British. How do I know all this? I lived through it as a child. The reason we have an Indian population is because the Brits were unable to get the local black population to work for the pittance they offered. The Brits were to wary of the Zulu to attempt to enslave them, so they brought Indian slaves to work the sugar cane fields. The ANC isn’t a South African. It is a Tanzanian/ British co-operation, funded by the UK labour party and Harold Mc Millan/ Wilson. The winds of change were funded by a UK/ANC coalition to regain their RSA/ Rhodesian cash cows. The huge influx of criminal north African refuse into South Africa is what keeps the foriegners who run the ANC in power and the rand at toilet paper value.
When Holilhlahla Mandela was released from his self imposed imprisonment, he had amassed a $20 million dollar fortune, sitting on his arse in a gaol cell.
The first place he visited in the UK was the office of MI6 in Whitehall to collect his cheque for services rendered. Nelson Mandela, John Vorster, Pik Botha, Deklerk all bought by MI6 and contributed to the British common poor disaster area the RSA has become today. The former government was only ever guilty of bad PR and a tendency to trust to readily, and allow total foriegn ownership of the SA media.