The ANC and religion (pt.1)
Jun. 15th, 2008 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutI'll write several posts that will, together, comprise a single essay on the ANC and religion. The central thesis of the essay 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. These several 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
Thus, today, we start with the INTRODUCTION, which sets out the argument in broad terms, on which I will elaborate in each of the next posts.
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
An essay on the ANC, religion, and the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma
“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 pre-suppose 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, because 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 common traits 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 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 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 ultimately believes 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 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 it 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. However, if 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 is also deeply problematic.
This 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. However, that 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.
1. Introduction
2. The ANC and Religion
3. Thabo Mbeki and the truth
4. Jacob Zuma and God
Thus, today, we start with the INTRODUCTION, which sets out the argument in broad terms, on which I will elaborate in each of the next posts.
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
An essay on the ANC, religion, and the politics of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma
“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 pre-suppose 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, because 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 common traits 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 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 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 ultimately believes 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 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 it 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. However, if 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 is also deeply problematic.
This 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. However, that 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.
