Abstract
South Africa is, at once, a deeply religious country and one whose relationship with organised religion – particularly Christianity – is inextricably entangled with its apartheid history. The National Party, which ruled from 1948 until 1994, considered itself a Christian organisation – one which found unwavering support for its racist and divisive politics within the then-powerful Dutch Reformed Church. Hendrik Verwoerd, who served as prime minister from 1958 until he was assassinated in 1966, and is largely considered to be the architect of the apartheid system, studied theology when he first went to university. Biblical verses were used to justify the government’s policies of separate development.
Then came 1994, and with it the advent of democracy in South Africa. The country was no longer to be guided by, among other things, dangerous misreadings of the Bible – instead, the constitution became the cornerstone of all South African law and, in many ways, its moral compass. It is prefaced by the bill of rights, which enshrines freedom of religion, sexual orientation, culture and criminalises discrimination on these or other grounds such as gender and race.
There have been only a few high-profile fierce “moral” battles between the country’s more conservative religious and cultural groupings and those who live by the constitution’s more liberal interpretation of citizens’ rights and responsibilities. Chief among these have been bruising public fights around same-sex marriages (South Africa is the only country on the African continent that not only allows these unions but does not criminalise the act of homosexuality), abortion and corporal punishment. There is another battle on the horizon: the country’s Minister of Social Development Bathabile Dlamini announced in July that a new law, currently in the drafting stages, would make it illegal for parents to spank their children at home. Dlamini was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying: “If a husband beats a wife it’s a crime, but if a parent hits a child who is helpless, it’s not illegal.” The newspaper reported that, under the draft law, parents would be charged with assault if, at home, they used a flat hand on a child’s bottom or applied any other form of corporal punishment.
It’s useful, here, to consider South Africa’s religious landscape nearly 20 years after Nelson Mandela became the country’s first black and democratically elected president. There are two sources of information for quantifying how many South Africans consider themselves as belonging to religious groupings or who identify according to their religious beliefs: the 2001 census data, and the most recent WIN-Gallup International Religiosity and Atheism Index, an international survey conducted between November 2011 and January 2012. The 2011 census did not feature any questions about religion, and Statistics South Africa – which carries out the census – explained itself thus at the time:
ABOVE: Archbishop Desmond Tutu beside a statue of himself in Cape Town
Credit: Mike Hutchings/Reuters
“In 2008, Stats SA embarked on a series of user consultations, to get advice as to what questions should be asked in the questionnaire. The question on religion was low on the list of priorities as informed by the users of census data, and it therefore did not make it onto the final list of data items.” (From the Census 2011 website: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census2011/faq.asp)
ABOVE: Members of the Shembe Church kneeling in water on the beach in Durban
Credit: Rogan Ward/Reuters
In 2001, Christianity in its many forms was by far the largest religious grouping. Of this, the largest denomination, by far, was the Zion Christian Church, or ZCC, a massive organisation which at the time counted more than three million people among its adherents. The ZCC and other neo-Pentecostal or charismatic churches, particularly those which mostly draw their members from black African communities across South Africa and elsewhere on the continent, have grown exponentially in the past 20 years. Recent, though unsubstantiated, estimates put the ZCC’s membership alone at six million people.
She believes there is plenty of room for a political party like hers on the South African landscape despite the country’s core values being contained in the constitution rather than any religious text
Also in 2001, the Dutch Reformed Church – a spiritual home to mostly white, Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, the Catholic Church and Methodist churches were the country’s largest religious groupings. Just 75,549 Jews and 654,064 Muslims were counted during the 2001 Census. In 2001, 79.77 per cent of South Africa’s citizens identified themselves as religious in some way. By 2007, according to the website Religious Intelligence (www.religiousintelligence.com), that figure had dipped to 73.52 per cent of the population. The WIN-Gallup Index, released in August 2012, revealed that just 64 per cent of South Africans considered themselves religious or belonging to a religious group.
Despite the decline, Jo-Ann Downs believes that South Africa remains “deeply religious”. Downs is the national chairman of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), which is the largest political party in the country whose values are based on a religion. Downs says they have between 30,000 and 40,000 members, and during the 2009 national elections the party secured three seats in South Africa’s National Assembly. They also hold single seats in three provinces: the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. Downs is quick to point out that while part of the party’s identity – and its name – is “Christian”, along with the associated Biblical values and beliefs, “we are much broader based”. “In another country we’d be called conservative - – so, socially conservative, economically conservative,”she explained. There is, she believes, plenty of room for a political party like hers on the South African landscape despite the country’s core values being contained in the constitution rather than any religious text. And she insists the ACDP and its members do not support censorship if it limits other people’s rights. On the thorny issues of gay marriage and abortion, for instance: “On moral issues – we’re pro-life. We don’t want gay marriage to be forced on churches, or a situation where faith-based organisations can’t say where they stand or ‘This is what we believe’.”
The Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Act 92 of 1996 legalised abortion in South Africa (beginning on 1 February 1997) in the face of fierce religious opposition both in Parliament and on the streets. The Abortion and Sterilisation Act 2 of 1975, which the TOP replaced, allowed abortion only in specific circumstances: pregnancy had to seriously threaten a woman’s physical or mental health; the unborn child had to be suffering physical or mental defects; or the pregnancy had to be the result of rape or incest. But the TOP changed this dramatically, stipulating – as the Reproductive Rights Alliance describes it – that “all women, irrespective of age, location or socio-economic status, can choose to terminate pregnancy without requiring the permission of their partners or parents”. The ACDP’s members in parliament voted against the act.
This is a scenario in which religious beliefs and the law of the land collided loudly and publicly. The act criminalises anyone who “prevents the lawful termination of a pregnancy or obstructs access to a facility for the termination of pregnancy”. But nurses and doctors who identify as religious and “pro-life” insisted that they should be exempt from performing abortions because the procedure fundamentally clashes with these beliefs. When the 1975 Act was repealed, the “conscience clause” – which allowed this exemption – was struck down, too. “Lots of doctors are pro-life,” Downs said. “As part of a democracy, people have the right [to have these beliefs]. To them [performing an abortion] is being forced to murder.” There have been many reported cases of nurses turning women away when they seek abortions at state facilities, and using religiously charged ideals and values to decry those who choose abortion as an option. But, Downs says, it’s important that while doctors or nurses are allowed to be conscientious objectors, they must not turn people away entirely, as this is in defiance of the country’s laws. She says women must be referred to other clinicians who are morally willing to perform abortions, so that both parties’ rights and beliefs are protected. The legislation has been tweaked to allow doctors or nurses to conscientiously object to performing abortions – but only if, as Downs suggests, they refer the woman in question to another practitioner. If no other practitioner is available and it is a medical emergency, the woman’s rights override the practitioner’s objections.
This is a scenario in which religious beliefs and the law of the land collided loudly and publicly
In 2006, South Africa legalised same-sex marriage – another law which is in line with the country’s constitution but was angrily and emotionally rejected by its religious citizens and groups. Here, again, the ACDP says religious organisations shouldn’t get a special exemption: they should, however, be given the option of refusing to marry a same-sex couple because to do so would clash directly with their faith. “The ACDP doesn’t want to be in people’s bedrooms,” she said. In short, she argues, what people do in their own homes is neither her, the party nor religious groups’ business – but churches shouldn’t be forced to perform ceremonies at odds with their beliefs, much as nurses shouldn’t be forced to perform abortions and have their right to belief and faith trodden on by somebody else’s right to reproductive freedom.
Downs says the ACDP will support censorship in some – undefined – cases because “you can take liberalism too far”. She cites the example of a Dutch political party, the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party, which contested the 2006 elections in the Netherlands. Among its policies? Cutting the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalising child pornography. It was disbanded in 2010 after failing to collect the 600 signatures required for participation in the national elections.
She thinks for a long time when asked what the next fight of this nature will be, then refers to what’s been nicknamed “the smacking law”. No date has yet been set for public hearings on and parliamentary discussion about the law, but the lines are appearing faintly in the sand. Already, children’s rights groups – pointing to the Constitution and the Children’s Act – are supporting the legislation, saying it’s an important step to protect children. But the ACDP intends to oppose it, and Cape Town’s Family Policy Institute, a Christian organisation, told newspaper the Cape Argus that getting the government involved in family matters could be dangerous. “The family itself is a unit and the government does not have the right to interfere with parental issues. How will criminalising parents decrease child abuse?” Errol Naidoo, the founder and president of the Family Policy Institute was quoted as saying.
It’s a sentiment Downs echoes: in much the same way that her party doesn’t want to enter people’s bedrooms, it doesn’t believe the government should intrude in people’s homes.
It is a system that seems, for now, to be working in South Africa: no single religious grouping is more powerful at the ballot box than another, and the constitution remains a founding document which – while it may not always enjoy all citizens’ support, is well respected and provides a good backbone for an ever-changing, often turbulent young democracy.
Census 2001
Source: South Africa census 2001