In defence of the right of conscience

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-09-05-beware-of-divine-judgment/#.U5GSql1ZpLg

In response to Gareth Cliff’s piece (see link above): “Beware of divine judgement”, it is important to emphasise that I have no particular predilection to Justice Mogoeng. What I want to discuss here has therefore nothing to do with the merits of his appointment as the Chief Justice of the country. In fact it’s worth mentioning that had the choice been mine to make, it is very likely that it would have differed to that of President Zuma, which was nevertheless unanimously ratified by the JSC. What I have a fundamental problem with is the affront to Chief Justice Mogoeng’s constitutionally enshrined right of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion, that Mr Cliff’s polemic amounts to.

Immediately following his assertion that his piece was not “another attack on general organised religion” and “strongly-held beliefs”, what I find surprising is that Mr Cliff hastens to do the exactly that. His first attack is to make an unsubstantiated but very common allegation that a negligible number among those who operate in arenas of “intellect, reason, analysis and discovery” are people of faith. 

I should remind Mr Cliff that the scientific method that he supposedly holds in high regard requires rigorous testing of evidence before conclusions are arrived at. I wonder whether he has any sample data to show us to substantiate so bold a claim. Particularly if his own statement is be believed that many people of faith, some of whom must fulfil a multiplicity of important functions in society, simply keep their faith a “private matter”.

Further, I wonder whether Mr Cliff realises the extent to which modern science is indebted to those who are supposedly inimical to “rational thought”. Incidentally, this list, that is far from exhaustive, includes men of such stature in the scientific community as: Copernicus; Kepler; Galileo; Brahe; Descartes; Boyle; Newton; Leibniz; Gassendi; Pascal; Mersenne; Cuvier; Harvey; Dalton; Faraday; Herschel; Joule; Lyell; Lavoisier; Priestly; Kelvin; Ohm; Ampere; Steno; Pasteur; Maxwell; Planck; and Mendel, many of whom were not only believers but clergymen! 

Among other statements, Mr Cliff then proceeds to speculate that religion upholds the “supposition that faith is more meritorious than rational thought”, suggesting that faith is necessarily in conflict with rationality. Perhaps it might help for Mr Cliff to be enlightened that Christianity is founded on a soundly rational basis that is supported by the simple mathematical logic that "nothing" cannot produce "something". Zero times anything always produces zero! It is therefore only logically consistent to assume something or Someone rather than nothing is the originator of space, time and matter. 

The constitution, rather than defining morality, is a social contract burdened with the impossible task of synthesising and codifying with the compromises necessitated by the plurality of our culture, the diverse ways that our rainbow nation understands morality. It cannot be the source but merely an approximation of the complex web of underlying societal moral values. Nevertheless holders of public office, in their capacity as public officials, are compelled to subjugate their personal views to those of the social contract that gave rise to their office. A principle that Justice Mogoeng has expressed on many occasions a clear appreciation of.

Any lingering doubt regarding Mr Cliff’s scarcely concealed contempt for Justice Mogoeng’s personal beliefs is betrayed by his assertion: 

“Judges would never admit evidence on hearsay, or speculate about unscientific things like a virgin birth or miracle, unless they wished to be laughed out of court, and the profession. Yet all of this is what Mogoeng Mogoeng admits as one of his basic tenets”

It might be of profound benefit for Mr Cliff and others who share his views to revisit Chapter 2, section 15 and subsection (2) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There they would learn that a public observance of religious conviction is a right that is protected by the constitution even for public officials. Furthermore, it is unclear why any judge, in their capacity as a judge, would venture to pronounce on the “virgin birth or miracle” unless it was directly pertinent to the case at hand. 

While it must be accepted that our opinions on such contentious issues as the selection of the Chief Justice will always differ, a distinction must be drawn between our assessment of the competence of candidates and their constitutionally protected right of conscience. While the former is to be expected, the latter goes against the very spirit and letter of our constitution. A failure to appreciate and respect this distinction is a slippery slope that leads us to the dreaded Orwellian society where the disturbing notion of `thought crime` reigns supreme. 

All South Africans, including Mr Cliff, understand the world through a conscious or unconscious set of presuppositions. To be denied the right to choose these presuppositions is to be robbed of what ultimately makes us human. Justice Mogoeng has chosen his to be the Biblical Christian worldview that presupposes a created universe and a Creator from whom all life, truth and morality flows. His freedom to hold and express such convictions, as should be for everyone else, must be protected.

Tales of inexorable doom

There is a perennial debate about the extent to which we are products of our formative experiences or as William Ernest Henley put it, “masters of our fates”.  I have always wondered whether the truth is not to be found somewhere in between these polar standpoints.  Nevertheless, I can never deny how profoundly indebted my view of the world is to the events surrounding the improbable transition of my country, South Africa. A transition from that much-maligned pariah state to an enduring symbol that there are other ways of navigating disruptive societal change than the well-trodden path of needless bloodshed.

I was twelve years old when Nelson Mandela was released from prison, amid a palpable air of triumph and jubilant expectation, all of which was inspiring and perplexing, all at once.  You see when I grew up, the name “Mandela” was akin to a swear word, always mentioned in hushed tones as if the very walls were co-conspirators in the sinister web of the Apartheid intelligence apparatus.  One thus had a sketchy picture of who this man was, let alone what it was that qualified him for such notoriety.

Upon his release I stood as before an entirely new world to be discovered.

The journey of discovery would be interposed between a sudden interest in the opposite sex, typical of the infamous period where childhood intersects adulthood, and a cavernous period in my country’s history. Thus the fanciful pursuits of budding adulthood were for me amid the backdrop of a forbidding cloud of uncertainty that hung forebodingly over my country, bringing with it intermittent rumours of inexorable doom.

With time it became clear why such oppressive anxiety had engulfed us. The events of human history had formed a credible picture in our collective consciousness, of what awaits generations who bear the unenviable responsibility of navigating such treacherous terrain. No less when that path is before a backdrop of a history draped in murderous blood as ours was.

Let me not regale you with how we transitioned from the appearance of ineluctable disaster to a difficult era of national reconciliation we must now navigate.  I will leave that to the countless commentaries, movies and books that do an expert job of it.  What I will tell you, is what they never can, how growing up in such historic times of so troubled a land, came to shape the prism through which I see the world and the path I would choose for myself in it.

I cannot tell you whether my idealism is a matter of nature or nurture. What I know is the enormous debt I owe to a pantheon of nameless indefatigable idealists who splatter the pages of my country’s troubled history, of whom Nelson Mandela is but one recognisable figure.  The triumphant jubilation that greeted my coming of age was perhaps an unsuspecting tribute to these heroes and heroines who eschewed the well-worn path of self-preservation and self-interest to give themselves instead to a cause bigger than their own lives. Their lives heroically adorned “ubuntu”, the South African idea that to be truly human is possible only in community with other people. Many of them would pay the ultimate price for the liberties I’m now tempted to take for granted.

I have thus come to see my life as an indivisible part of a social whole that transcends both space and time. I was born into a story that predated my life by years without number. A story that will continue untroubled after I meet the fate of every man. History will remember me less for my personal achievements and accumulation of countless artefacts and more for how I contribute toward the tangible improvement of the lives of my fellow sojourners on this fleeting journey.

My country’s transition into the democratic era was a summit of centuries of a long upward climb and so deserved every bit of the adulation it received. What was nonetheless less clear then and jarringly obvious now, is the extent of the work that awaits a nation that must build upon the ruins of centuries of devastation.  It is within this story that I locate my existence.  I am a child of these ground shaking historical events.

Deconstructing Capitalism

There was a time in my own lifetime when it was “common knowledge” that Communism was evil and Capitalism was good. History, it seemed, vindicated this narrative when the Berlin wall fell in 1989, ending with it a bitter geopolitical contest that lasted more than 70 years. Arguably the greatest financial crisis in history came to remind us thirty years later that things are not quite as simple. 

With the benefit of hindsight, one wonders whether the struggle ought not to have been seen rather as the bad versus the worse. Six years after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the world still staggers as if seeking for the certainty it once knew, even if unfolding events have proven that the erstwhile certainty was in fact spurious. Nevertheless the question must still be answered – is there an alternative to capitalism as we have come to know it?

The question is weighty and will surely be answered by the great minds that occasionally grace the stage of history. Meanwhile I will be content to reflect on some of the flaws of capitalism that were unmasked so brutally by the Financial Crisis, along with its ubiquitous and lamentable tendency to exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor. This might help in thinking clearer about how to construct a more sure economic foundation. 

Capitalism won the battle of ideologies for no reason other than the simple fact of it being considerably more aligned to reality than Marxism. The basic flaw of the latter consists in its idealistic conception of human nature evidenced in the absence of in-built incentives for personal initiative, industry and innovation. The Great Russian famine of 1921 effectively sealed the fate of the incipient project, replacing it with Marxist-Leninism, a system much more egregious than anything Capitalism could be accused of. Its collapse in 1989 was truly one of the great human triumphs of the 20th century. 

Although Adam Smith is regarded as the father of what came to be called capitalism, his immortalised tome, “An inquiry into nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, was essentially a codification of his observations of practices in societies that were wealthy relative to those that were not. His great contribution was not so much the invention of the free market system as much as a genius to define a system that had already differentiated certain societies from others. Modern Capitalism’s roots are traceable to the mercantile system developed by Dutch traders who predated Smith’s work by well over a century. In fact one could even go back as far as the Middle Ages. Adam Smith’s thesis on the merits of the division of labour was revolutionary in its promotion of specialization that led to greater efficiency in production and the possibility for greater depth in skill and innovation. 

The real problems emerged with the economic system that took shape with the advent of the industrial revolution in late 19th century England, that became the ugly face of human depravity, where exploitation of the weak was the order of the day. This economic system came to be called Capitalism by Karl Marx. Indeed, the birth of Marxism a century later was but a misguided response to the injustices that he and his contemporaries observed in the appalling social conditions that emerged in many European cities following the outbreak of the Industrial Revolution. Although some of the earlier inhumane practices were significantly alleviated in the West, its rise across the world has never failed to be associated with a trail of similar social outcries, from China, to Vietnam, to Bangladesh. Some of its flaws, not least its tendency to accentuate economic inequality, contain seeds that might one day account for its eventual downfall. 

Among the intellectual pillars of Capitalism is the Rational Choice Theory, which takes it for granted that human beings are rational. What worries more than the disputable factuality of that presupposition is the problematic way in which the theory came to redefine rationality. Its assimilation into Western popular thought coincided with the reinterpretation of rationality to refer to the human proclivity towards narrow self-interest. What was always known to be a social vice was effectively sanctified into something akin to a virtue. To be selfish thus came to be accepted as not only rational but socially acceptable and even desirable if not laudable. 

The idea that to be rational is to be selfish defines much of what is wrong with Capitalism. The financial services sector for example, one that is characterised by the spirit of modern capitalism in its most avaricious, is known to be highly financially rewarding not least for its lucrative bonus incentive culture. Predictably it draws to itself the best brains in society as gnats to light. The societal imbalances created by this inordinate concentration of society’s most talented in one-sector are a subject for another time. The focus now is the entrancing allure of the bonus that is known to blur the moral consciousness of people across the corporate hierarchy. The generous financial reward becomes the overarching imperative that invariably leads to a flouting of responsibility to fellow human beings both within and without the organisation, a mindset that is reinforced by what we have come to accept as a normal order of business – the unbridled pursuit of self-interest. 

It is no coincidence that capitalism usually coincides with yawning economic inequalities. Precisely because it cannot exist without them. According to the Capitalist worldview, economic profit is the primary pursuit and usually the quicker it is earned the better. Anything, including human beings, must be sacrificed to this insatiable idol. Thus people become nothing more than a line item on the financial statement, a factor of production or an easily expendable cost that must be lowered as far as possible. Indeed, there is no stopping insatiable Capital on its global expedition from one corner of the globe to the next, seeking the lowest labour “costs”. Accordingly, we have come to accept it as a matter of fact that unless we lower our labour costs, we will fail to attract or retain the Capital we need for “higher economic growth”, the content of which is not always specified. And thus society has come to be ensnared by the specious promises of Capitalism.

The reality is that for this “high economic growth” to occur people must necessarily earn low wages, sometimes pitifully low wages, along with a multiplicity of untold indignities while the owners of capital and the managerial elite live large and make a killing. This effectively defines the socially untenable economic inequalities we have come to see, without which Capitalism, as we have come to know it, cannot survive. Something must surely be amiss in a system that depends on the perpetuation of injustice for its survival. The proponents of capitalism, in other words its beneficiaries, are nevertheless at pains to convince us that this should be accepted as the workings of a normal society.

Our challenge is not so much to change human nature as much as to design a socio-economic structure that rewards what is good and disincentivises what is socially undesirable. The current orthodoxy of Capitalism certainly leaves much to be desired in this regard. It creates a parallel universe with values that are many times at odds with what is known to be right, just and decent by the common person. The interests of posterity are gleefully sacrificed at the shrine of short-term gain.

Among the primary causes of this is the typically impersonal ownership structure inherent in what is known as the “public ownership” of shares. Where the owners are numerous anonymous individuals and professional fund managers whose sole concern is the extent to which the share price will rise and usually nothing more. Managers are appointed on the basis of this narrow measure and are rewarded and punished according to the extent of their success in fulfilling it. They, in turn, soon learn how to dance to the tune of the multitude of faceless investors. The environment is thus created that promotes an inordinate preoccupation with short-term profitability. This is can only be the inevitable result when managers possess minimal long-term ties to the companies they manage. The system abets the untenable incentive systems I have referred to, along with famously Darwinian corporate cultures characterized by a fear of failure that is ultimately inimical to true innovation. 

The answer must surely lie in the de-emphasis of the public ownership model, which is the driver of much of the ills of Capitalism. Some of its touted advantages such as the supposed efficiency in the allocation of financial resources are overstated if not overshadowed by its glaring weaknesses that render it fundamentally unstable. Among these flaws is a typically inordinate reliance on debt, which is a natural outcome of a system that belligerently demands short-term results. The diminution of the public share ownership system could be achieved in a number of ways including gradually raising the tax rates of some of these corporate behemoths until they become unsustainable. The funds could then be channelled into the promotion of small to medium family owned enterprises. 

The advantage of family-owned small to medium enterprises is their inherent multigenerational scope. Because of their association with family honour and close family management, the values that govern them are much more likely to be aligned with universal virtues such as the promotion of what is right, just, equitable and decent. This lends itself to business principles that uphold the interests of the communities in which they function. A company that seeks to exist in a 100 years, as family businesses are inclined to, will surely prize a good reputation and act accordingly. 

Thus an alignment will result between corporate and community values and interests, which are usually mismatched in a Capitalistic system. The long-term perspective is also associated with low financial gearing where growth is financed by savings from profits rather than debt. The resulting low debt culture can create the added advantage of de-financialising the economy, reducing the power of far-flung unscrupulous financiers to destabilise our lives and ensures the distribution of talent across the economic sectors for balanced socio-economic development. The low debt environment would also counterbalance the pressure to pursue unsustainably high and inequitable growth rates, usually at the behest of rapacious bankers, which serve to corrupt the corporate culture and contribute to accelerated environmental damage as natural resources are consumed unsustainably. 

It can never be denied that the cause of the creation of wealth and the achievement of general socioeconomic progress are much better served by the free market than a centrally planned economy ever could. The verdict of 1989 could hardly have sent a clearer message to ages. It should be clear, however, that capitalism is no synonym for the free market. The need to find an alternative to it should ultimately be driven by its incompatibility with the ideal of a sustainably free market. From the industrial revolution until now, capitalism has been consistently associated with yawning economic asymmetries where the powerful invariably use their dominant market position to obstruct the development of a more sustainable spread of wealth. The socio-economic inequalities that result come with the looming threat of revolution and tyranny along with untenable, speculative and highly costly socio-economic experiments like Marxist-Leninism. All of which render capitalism fundamentally unstable, unsustainable and self-defeating. 

The role of the church in the quest for ethnic of reconciliation

I write that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the ground and pillar of truth. (1 Tim 3v15)

Since the Great Renaissance, the role of the church in the modern world has been under fierce contestation. Many in the Western world today consider it an anachronistic institution that is out of touch with modern realities. This is ironic considering how eminently indebted Western civilisation is to the church. This flawed narrative wouldn’t be so tragic if the message had not been so deeply internalised by the church1 itself. 

This idea has been so pervasive that the ascent of modernity has consistently coincided with the withdrawal of the church from the marketplace of ideas, often with devastating consequences. Along with this withdrawal has been a tragic departure of the light of moral clarity and truth, which the church is uniquely positioned to proclaim and model. This has left a dark shadow over a contemporary culture that cannot but disintegrate under the weight of moral relativism. 

The reality is that the church is as essential to the destiny of the nations as it has ever been. Perhaps, given the ubiquitous moral malaise and consequent drift of the nations, it might be argued that its role is more crucial in these times than ever before. 

Despite its marginalisation, self-inflicted or otherwise, the church can draw encouragement that its role is ultimately not defined by vacillating whims of the ages but rather its divinely instituted status as the “ground and pillar of truth”. 

It is the church alone that carries the divine mandate to “disciple” and to teach the nations. While the marriage of the institutional church and political governance has been shown to be historically problematic, the church’s responsibility as a prophetic voice, moral conscience and developer of leaders should never be disputed or ceded. 

The source of the church’s authority is divine and its mandate includes faithfully and fearlessly proclaiming the word of God to the nations - a simple act of incalculable power. The divine authority of the bible is evidenced by its unrivalled ability to diagnose the human condition as well as its unparalleled remedy for its ills. Any reading of scripture will confirm its uncanny ability to pierce the heart as far as “the division of soul and spirit,” “judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart”, always with incisive precision. 

The human heart might perhaps be considered as what most profoundly defines our humanity. Technological and scientific advancement of modern man can never be disputed, but these gains have failed to relieve the human heart of the dilemmas that have afflicted it from time immemorial. It is in the human heart that love, peace and self-control reside, as do such vices as hatred, greed, selfishness and pride. 

These vices are directly attributable for much of the tragedies in the catalogue of human history, including the prejudice, pride, hatred and bitterness that have proven such obstinate obstacles in the quest for genuine reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. 

The South African constitution has received countless reviews over the years. While this might be so, its glaring failure to precipitate desperately needed moral renewal has ironically starkly exposed the limitations of political institutions and laws. Countless examples can be cited, but for our purposes, I will only highlight its failure to effectively advance the quest for true national reconciliation despite the loftiness of its ideals. 

The reason is simple, institutions and laws, as critical as they are in the effective functioning of nations, are ill equipped to deal what lies at the centre of most of national problems – the ineradicable corruption of the human heart. The gospel message is the perfect and unique cure for this intrinsic problem as it promises a new heart for the believer, and with it a fundamental transformation of values and motivations. 

The church alone has been given stewardship of the gospel message, which therefore secures its indispensability in the quest for morally sound and therefore sustainable civilisations. Thus even with the vexing issue of ethnic reconciliation, our nation continues to battle in vain because at its core are problematic heart attitudes, for which laws, even good laws, are a powerless antidote. The church therefore has an unrivalled role to play even in this critical issue. 

Humanism and its proponents might purport undying commitment to the idea of equality2. The problem with this claim is that it leaves the fundamental question jarringly unanswered: “says who?” 

If a man bestows equality, this same man, to have such authority, must necessarily be “more equal than others”, which is, of course, a fundament contradiction. Indeed, it’s not inconceivable that the same man might one day change his mind. Also, lest we forget, the universal acceptance, in theory at least, of the principle of equality of people is a fairly recent phenomenon in human history. 

The message entrusted to the church on the other hand advocates the inherent equality of all people, based on the premise that all mankind is created in the image of God. Thus man carries a dignity that is not based on any of the observable measures commonly used to judge the worth of people such as, colour, ethnicity, education, personality, gender, intelligence, athletic prowess and physical beauty. Human dignity is therefore fundamental and independent of prevailing sociological ideas - because no man bestows it, no man can take it away.

It is clear of course that the moral authority of the church and its effectual influence in society will depend on its ability to authenticate its claims by embodying the message it propagates. The word must become flesh. It is imperative that the world not merely hears the church’s message; it must see it being demonstrated. 

It should be highlighted that authenticity is not synonymous with perfection. The reality is that the message is still carried in “jars of clay”, vessels that are marred by the humbling imprints of imperfection. Nevertheless, history provides indisputable evidence that when the church does not distinguish between, “Greek and Jew, circumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman”, society soon takes notice and the world is “turned upside-down.” 

1 The use of the word church is in its broader meaning, which includes both the institutional church that consists of its governing structure and ministries as well as the essential church, which encapsulates all redeemed people of God.

2 I refer exclusively to the principle of equality in inherent worth or the principle of ontological equality, which makes room for differentiated functions and expressions as outlined in scripture.

Stewards of a sacred promise

Time has the uncanny knack of making cynics of us. What was once revered so easily degenerates into worthlessness amid the grind of time and bitter circumstance. It is imperative therefore that we cast our weary memories back to that noble promise that gave birth to our nation. It is a promise that won our allegiance against the impassioned threats of our fears and anger.

We have much to contribute to the community of nations, none of which compares to the promise that lit our hearts once upon a time. This is the audacious promise that a diverse people can overcome their differences and build a thriving multicultural society.

Though the promise was simple, intervening years have taught us that it is far from easy. It was for this reason that the world applauded, as it did, at the improbable genesis of our democratic order. It marvelled that we even dared to envision a path that had eluded and continues to elude so many, in light of what seems an inherent human proclivity towards exclusion and sectarianism.

A combination of necessity and idealism had impelled us to chart a different path from the familiar human story of ethnic division and strife. Faced with centuries of bitter animosity, we chose to scorn our inherited frame of references and to yield instead to the hope that we, a people of diverse cultures, can learn to forge a shared sense of nationhood.

Time has made us wise to the reality that the Rainbow Nation was a promise rather than a reality. Amid the exhilaration of civil war averted and the elation of a nation reborn, we had succumbed to the spurious hope that the journey would be easier than what reality demanded it should be. We would yet be painfully denuded of our naivety.

The march of time has shown us that our chosen path was one that demanded of us to reach for virtues uncommon among men. We had not been afforded the luxury of a middle ground. We were either destined for summits of greatness or the abyss of oblivion. United we would stand but divided, our ruin would be certain.

This solemn choice still confronts us today, precisely because a nation divided cannot but collapse under its own weight. The combination of inequality and bitterness in a country with a history drenched in violence from its inception, as we have come to experience, does not make for the kind of harmonious society any of us wish for our sons and daughters to inherit.

The intervening years since our improbable beginning would introduce further complications that would feed our loss of innocence and growth of cynicism, not least a political establishment of endemic corruption and incompetence. Increasingly, we came to see flagrant displays of conflicting interests of those in power to those of broader society. In some senses they have fed some of our deep-seated fears about each other, which have cajoled us at times to seek refuge in our cultural laagers where beliefs that militate against our better judgement continue to thrive.

This crisis of leadership presents us with the task of reclaiming our power as South Africans from elements bent on furthering their own interests at enormous cost to ours. This crisis poses perhaps the greatest threat to the long-term survival of our nation and thus demands our most pressing attention. Nevertheless accomplishing that goal does not take away our arduous historic task of forging a united and cohesive society founded on tangible justice for all.

We must contend with the spectre of cynicism that confronts us and reclaim our deflated idealism, lest our unfulfilled longings congeal into a deathly despair that incarnates its fears. Perhaps we underestimated the extent of our woundedness and the complexity of the task before us. We miscalculated the extent that spatial, social, developmental and economic imprints of our inherited historical injustice, along with deeply entrenched mind-sets that afflict us all, would be perennial competitors with our idealism.

Despite our many stumbles and the multiplicity of difficulties that continue to confront us, our collective self-interest and the enduring debt to future South Africans compel us to choose principle over expediency, hope over despair and idealism over cynicism. Though the full manifestation of the Rainbow Nation remains yet a promise unfulfilled, let us reclaim our idealism, taking heed the counsel of history that instructs that great nations are not made in a day. Not a few, like us, were forged in the fiery furnace of bitter adversity.

Let us remember once more the grandeur of our destiny in the grand drama of history. That of demonstrating a venerable ideal, for the witness of all posterity. The sacred promise that a diverse people can indeed unite!

Can a house so acutely divided long endure?

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25)

These words were first spoken two thousand years ago by Jesus of Nazareth as a response to His detractors who, in a failed attempt to discredit Him, accused Him of casting out demons by Beelzebub the prince of demons. The subtext being that even Satan understood this principle. The great American president Abraham Lincoln was to repeat them in 1858 to highlight the untenable continuation of a half slave owning and non-slave owning United States of America, ideas that would be consummated by blood. Approaching twenty years since the advent of democracy, our hope to endure and prosper well into the twentieth century and beyond would be well served by hearkening to the same message: a house divided cannot stand!

Our country faces no greater challenge to its unity, cohesion and enduring prosperity than the gnawing spectre of racism. Perhaps this ought not be too surprising given stubborn, subterranean and often unchecked beliefs in the superiority of the white race, which had earlier found expression in apartheid. 

This iniquitous system which catapulted the national party to power in 1948, had been seen by some as an “ingenious” solution to the “native question”, which had troubled man of such intellectual dexterity as General JC Smuts who simply could not fathom the thought that South Africans of African descent could live side by side with their white counterparts, in a environment of mutual respect, equality and citizenship. 

No longer able to contain his exasperation, Smuts once confessed, “When I consider the political future of the natives in South Africa I must say that I look into the shadows and darkness, and then I feel inclined to shift the intolerable burden of solving that sphinx problem to the ampler shoulders and stronger brains of the future“. 

Feeling the burden of this “sphinx problem”, John Merriman, the last Prime Minister of the Cape Colony before the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, had earlier lamented, “I wish we had no black men in South Africa”. Seeing as Providence had so determined, he had to concede with these ominously prescient words that ignoring it would be “to build on a volcano, the suppressed force of which must some day burst forth in a destroying flood, as history warns us it has always done.” 

Under the scheme of apartheid, black South Africans would be given the “privilege” of self-governance in their own reserves where they would ostensibly enjoy the privileges of citizenship governed by their own “people” by their own customs. The Verwoerdian vision captured the imagination of the times. It seemed an elegant way of dealing with the nagging problem, while simultaneously deftly sidestepping the gnawing moral pitfalls, under the pretext of preserving black culture and autonomy. 

Of course black South Africans were not so simple as to overlook the obvious bigotry, refusing to be duped by this show of “graciousness”. They rightfully resisted, reluctantly resorting to a decades-long armed struggle, having despaired of the efficacy of peaceful means. Though a full-blown civil war would be averted, violent racial tension made the country a difficult place in which to live. The pressure of the consequent civil unrest, economic and sports sanctions as well as the stigma of the country’s pariah status, culminated in the ineluctable dawn of the democratic era, a “miracle” that rightly brought the country into the gaze of an admiring global community. 

Without taking anything way from the “rainbow moment”, with hindsight it seems the change was brought about largely by pragmatism than any sense of contrition over the immorality of apartheid. Evolving western views on racism had given rise to intensified international sanctions against the country, effectively crippling its economy, which was a crucial factor in the eventual capitulation. 

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 also aided matters. It had given tactical, moral and financial support to the liberation effort. Its demise therefore allayed concerns about the imminence of a dreaded communist revolution, which had served as what some consider as merely a pretext to cover what was otherwise a visceral aversion to democratic reforms. Negotiations could therefore commence in earnest.

An assessment of race relations twenty years later reflects sporadic improvements but leaves much to be desired in light of the grandeur of the idea of the rainbow nation. Some might cynically contend that we have seen nothing more than cosmetic changes from the days of our dark past. Changes that appear at times more induced than embraced and usually not without much resentment from largely unwilling protagonists. Indeed, much of our inter-racial engagement continues to be characterised by suspicion, distrust, smouldering resentment, scarcely concealed condescension, exclusion and forced smiles. The ideal of harmonious, deep and equitable cross-racial relationships remains largely a dream deferred. 

The roots and the nature of racism in South Africa are highly complex, and a view that purports a complete understanding can rightly be considered presumptuous. Equally, it would be disingenuous equating racism to the unpardonable sin or one that every white South African suffers from. Certainly any attempts to ascribe moral superiority to any people group by virtue of its standing on this question would be duplicitous. Indeed, the honest among us will find it difficult to dispute the biblical proclamation, “there is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. 

It is not my thesis here that this is the only or even necessarily the greatest problem facing South Africa today. It is only one of the many challenges we face. Nevertheless, it is well within our collective interests to remain indefatigable in contending with injustice wherever and whenever it surfaces, particularly when its persistence imperils the hope of realising an idea so core to our incipient national identity - that of the rainbow nation, one on which many have sadly long despaired, considering it farcical and a cruel illusion in the face of persisting racism. 

It could be argued that in dealing with racism, we have fallen prey to the error of presuming that the abrogation of apartheid laws marked its end in South Africa. It is not uncommon hearing from proponents of this line of reasoning repeated appeals for black people to move on and leave the past behind. While a forward-looking orientation is crucial to our progress as a nation, this should not amount to a failure to deal with present realities, rooted in our fractious past. Indeed, the nurtured and oft-unchallenged notion of the supposed inherent superiority of white people, explained by nothing other their whiteness, is a present and not a past reality. It can only be for our collective benefit to lay the proverbial axe to the root. 

A deeper reflection on racism illuminates a condition with roots common to all humanity. To varying degrees, we are all given to the universal vice of prejudice, founded, among other things, on fear. Fear that we are not quite adequate and that we will one day be found out. A fear that has many faces, not least a desire to portray an imagined sense of superiority over the next person. Translated into a people group in relation to another, we call this racism. Accordingly, the origins of racism, as it came to be experienced in South Africa, found spurious justification from theological, scientific and cultural anchors respectively through passing of various historical epochs. 

Self-serving interpretations of scripture sought to portray black people, the putative descendents of Ham, even with the tenuous biblical substantiation, as a cursed race and therefore subject to subservience and subjugation. This was further conflated with a twisted version of Calvinism that mischievously condemned black people as irredeemably predestined for perdition. The advent of rationalism and the concomitant cultural shift away from biblical Christianity came to weaken reliance on biblical authority. A new intellectual anchor needed to be found. This brought into play Darwin’s theory of natural selection. 

Charles Darwin’s seminal work, tellingly entitled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, came to take central stage in defining human consciousness, according to which it seemed an acceptable proposition in Western popular thought to consider black people as inferior to their white counterparts, owing to a lower place on the supposed evolutionary scale. After all, so the argument went, Europeans were streets ahead in technological and cultural sophistication. This coincided with the enslavement of black people, colonialism and apartheid. All of which had the added consequence of adversely shaping the mind of both actors, entrenching habits of superiority and subservience that served to reinforce the original lie and thus promoting a pernicious vicious cycle.

Of course the test of time would betray these arguments, robbing them of their prominence in mainstream Western consciousness. They would be driven to the fringes of society and at times the shadows, where they would continue to lurk unnoticed. It is curious that despite the obvious injustice, particularly in a culture supposedly steeped in Judeo-Christian morality, the change of mind came only after much resistance, bloodshed and time. The moral authority, tenacity and sometimes militancy of such giants as Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela played a pivotal role in raising the profile of the injustice of racism and thus reshaping Western popular opinion, with South African being among the last bastions of institutionalised racism. 

My contention here rests not on a belief in uniformity for its own sake. I contend rather for the inherent equality in dignity and worth of all human beings. Our histories that were nurtured continents apart by vastly divergent exigencies make our differences unavoidable. Rather than a limitation, this is a strength that contributes to the wealth and vibrancy of our nation. The challenge and opportunity before us is to harness the latent treasures of our rich diversity and forge them into a competitive advantage that makes us a cohesive and unstoppable force in global business, the arts, engineering, science, sports, technology and international relations. 

President JC Smuts, a brilliant man by all accounts, with uncharacteristic cowardice and myopia, opted to transfer the resolution of our inter-racial challenges to the “ampler shoulders and stronger brains of future”. How dearly we have all paid for his abdication of responsibility! In taking up his challenge however, we must accept that the full realisation of the boundless potential of our rainbow nation requires for the perennial issue of racism to be finally laid to rest. We owe our progeny no less! 

Without burdening each other with the overwhelming weight of guilt, we do well to remember that apartheid was merely a fruit of a tree that remains with us. Its end was a commendable start. Nevertheless, we remain with the arduous task of dealing with its resilient progenitor, racism. This task can only begin with an acknowledgement of its existence, a simple proposition that has so far proven surprisingly illusive. 

What is morality?

Perusing any contemporary newspaper should remove any lingering doubts that human beings, regardless of their professed positions on theism, remain ineradicable moralists. We must confess to be uniformly given to moralizing. At the core of a typical political story is, invariably, a multiplicity of usually unquestioned underlying moral judgments with which both journalists and readers alike instinctively concur. 

Corruption is a subject on which South Africans have become painfully conversant in recent times. Try as we might, for many of us a presidential homestead to the value of R200million, at tax payers expense, amidst a sea of poverty, is an idea we find simply irreconcilably repugnant.

With morality evidently as intrinsic to being human as it seems to be, one cannot help but be provoked by a jarring question attributed to one of our prominent politicians, whom a Sunday Newspaper story reports as having asked, "what is morality?"

The question is troubling at first. After all if a person in a position of such public trust confesses ignorance to this fundamental question, what hope is there for our politics? Such concerns, which I share, only betray our status as inveterate moralists. Upon deeper reflection the question becomes deceptively profound, surprisingly honest and a logical conclusion to what many consider a coherent worldview. 

Indeed, for evolved molecules and free moral agents that we purportedly are, the underlying question suddenly becomes a reasonable one. Namely, the question of what is morally right or wrong must necessarily be a personal one. It is rightly unjustifiable for a people of intrinsically equal value and worth to ascribe their moral standards to the rest of humanity. 

So, rightly we should ask, who conferred up them that authority? 

Someone might argue that what we regard as morality is simply a social contract. In other words morality consists of the evolution of values that a society has incrementally embraced through time, driven by mutual self-interest, towards collective survival.

The same question had to be contemplated by the victorious Allied forces in their dealings with a conquered Nazi Germany, relating specifically to the chilling spectre of the holocaust. Nazi Germany, whether passively or actively, collectively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of countless fellow human beings who committed no crime other than to be born into a particular ethnic community. It is worth highlighting here that those gruesome acts that constitute the holocaust occurred in a society that had for decades longed for a way of contending with the irritatingly persistent Jewish question, and thus Hitler’s “final solution” found resonance with what had become morally numb society. 

During the famous Nuremberg trials, the Allies were presented with the troublesome matter of bringing to judgment people who acted not only in concert with societal norms but in fact within the laws of their land. In convicting the Nazi officials, they were in fact making a profound statement on morality, namely, there is a standard of morality that transcends both societal norms and laws. Though they might not have been quite able to fathom it, its reality was so immanent as to be impossible to deny. Though not intending to, they were essentially compelled to unwittingly present a penetrating debunking of the social contract argument. That is, there is more to morality than merely societal norms and laws.

This leaves us face to face with a troubling conundrum. That we are moral, we cannot truthfully deny. Indeed, when we learn, as we commonly do, that one of our politicians has misappropriated public funds, a visceral sense of injustice wells up inside of us that seems to go exceedingly beyond philosophical reasoning. Invariably, we become deeply overcome by a righteous indignation by the brazen dishonesty. Instinctively, in the process, we make what are undeniable moral judgments. This immediately places us on a pedestal that presumes universality to our supposed personal moral standards that we feel at liberty to indiscriminately use to judge politicians, who may not even share them!

This conundrum leaves us with the same conclusion implied by the verdicts of the Nuremberg trials, that there exists such a thing as transcendent morality that is profoundly visceral and self-evident. If we accept morality to be necessarily personal, the question becomes who is this person whose moral values we seem to irresistibly gravitate to? Whoever this person is, they must possess intrinsically superior worth and value than all human beings. Otherwise, how else can they justifiably command a universal obligation to their personal moral standards? 

The bible reveals the identity of whom Greek philosophers of antiquity called the "Unmoved mover" as possessing the mysterious appellation: I AM. The name, speaks much about His nature, that of one who is unbound by time, eternally present and personal. Scripture reveals Him as just and untouched by corruption of any kind and in fact untouchable by it, the very embodiment of those timeless virtues that have bound nations for time immemorial, without which they seem irrevocably destined for tragic disintegration.

We are His offspring and thus possess remnants of His personal attributes from which we remain yet unable to entirely extricate ourselves, even though the grotesque imprimatur of sin continues to mar us. His holiness precludes Him from touching what is corrupt, which has accordingly created an infinite chasm between Him and us, his prodigal offspring. In the absence of this vital connection, life makes a discordant sound that leaves us helplessly aware that things are not quite as they ought to be. Though in times past He remained hid from his wayward offspring, compelled by His essence, love, on the cross he paid the penalty for our gnawing guilt. To nations therefore, the divine invitation resounds with echoes of infinite mercy, it speaks and will not be silenced: “Look to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:22)