A better way: For democracy to work, let's pause, reflect, engage (and repeat this process), before labeling one another

* This article is the extended version of a letter published by the Financial Mail on 29 October 2021.

Earlier this month, a news outlet that describes itself as “South Africa’s best source of news, opinion, and analysis from the business sector and political economy” published an article by Chris Roper, “ACDP SHOWS ITS FACE”.

In the article, Mr. Roper describes South Africa’s premier and longest standing Christian political party, serving in a country where, according to Statistics SA, more than 80 % of the population professes to be Christian, as a “backward, bigoted party, with little concern for the human rights safeguarded in the constitution”. Mr. Roper’s attack on the ACDP is an attack on those Christians, and possibly people of other faiths in South Africa, who hold all or some of the party’s values.?

The concern that motivates my response to Mr. Roper originates not only with the desire to give a clearer perspective of the Christian worldview (one that the ACDP happens to align with), but also with how we (South Africans in the case) engage with and relate to one another amid our different worldviews. Doing so respectfully, honourably, and honestly can only do good for our democracy. ?????

Before turning his attention to the ACDP’s values, or what he calls “pearls of prejudice,” Mr. Roper describes the ACDP’s support and advocacy for the legal use of Ivermectin as “peddling snake oil” and accuses the party of posting “anti-vaccination lies on social media”.

Both the author’s description and accusation appear to be cheap shots, aimed at tarnishing the reputation of a political party, rather than critically engaging the ACDP’s position on Ivermectin and the party’s social media claims about the Covid-19 vaccine in a manner that helps readers of an otherwise reputable publication, arrive at a greater truth.

Mr. Roper doesn’t explain why, according to him, the ACDP’s hard-won victory to make Ivermectin available as a possible remedy to South Africans suffering from Covid-19 is akin to the “peddling of snake oil”, nor does he offer reasons for why he sees the ACDP as being dishonest.

Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University, Anthea Garman, has written about “damaging journalism”. She cautions against, for example, “the use of anonymous, and perhaps shady, sources; the right of reply given to affected people; diligent verification of leaked information; and the need for high suspicion about the motives of intelligence sources.” Making unsubstantiated claims or accusations without reason can be added to this list. ?

As an aside, the ACDP has never shied away from criticizing those who could otherwise have increased or formed part of its voting pool – the so-called “peddlers of snake oil”. ?In 2019, for example, the ACDP, with its President at the forefront, took a stand against the criminal activity of those operating from within the South African church and under the guise of the Christian faith.

The ACDP is willing to walk this kind of principled path because it is a party that, contrary to what Mr. Roper suggests in his article, prioritises human value above the ‘the bottom line’ or the kind of expediency that would otherwise increase the party’s social and political capital.

Put differently, the ACDP is determined to stand by its principles and values even if it means receiving fewer votes. From my perspective, no other political party in South Africa can claim to have stood by a set of principles and values for as long as the ACDP has, and at the risk of alienating prospective supporters. The absence of transparent and value-based political competition is one of the fundamental challenges presently facing the health of South Africa’s constitutional democracy.

Within the letter, but not within the spirit

While Mr. Roper’s article is clearly within the legal confines of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, the disposition with which he writes runs contrary to what British-American philosopher, Kwame Anthony Appiah calls The Democratic Spirit and what philosophers more widely call fallibilism or, in layman’s terms, intellectual humility. This involves the willingness “to listen carefully to the views of other citizens who disagree with us.”

For Appiah, intellectual humility brings with it at least three advantages, aside from the fact that it opens up the opportunity for us to learn from others. First, “our shared participation in the life of the republic will go better if we treat each other with respect.” Second, democracy depends on knowledge of what different people want. This cannot be determined outside of listening. Third, the best kind of change happens through persuasion, not coercion. For attempts at persuasion to be successful, those doing the persuading bust begin or enter a conversation by assuming the best, and not the worst of others.

The example that Appiah offers in this regard applies not only to how citizens perceive and treat one another but also to how individual citizens perceive and treat collectives, including political parties. The example is particularly relevant to Mr. Roper’s article in the Financial Mail:

“Someone believes that the state should continue to recognize heterosexual marriages but not same-sex ones. I think this is a mistake. How should I respond? It is, of course, possible that this individual is motivated by simple bigotry. But it is also possible that he has reasons and that if I attend to these reasons, I will change my mind or may be able to respond to the arguments in ways that will change his mind. None of that can happen if each of us starts with the assumption that the other is bigoted, or evil, or foolish.”

Whether or not Mr. Roper’s exposé advances democracy in South Africa, is, therefore, from my perspective at least, far from a settled matter. But let me turn more specifically to the ACDP values that Mr. Roper finds so offensive.

Acknowledging God in the party constitution

First, he aims at the fact that the ACDP acknowledges God in its party constitution. That the ACDP does so shouldn’t be surprising or upsetting for anyone with knowledge and understanding of democracy, South Africa’s Bill of Rights, and the country’s demographics. Sections 15 and 31 of South Africa’s Constitution give explicit recognition to freedom of religion in South Africa, and as I’ve already noted, according to statistics compiled in 2015, more than 80 % of the South African population professes to be Christian.

Irrespective of how committed to the Christian faith or biblically founded the worldviews of South Africa’s citizenry may be, South African society remains a deeply religious one. Even if this weren’t so, South Africa’s citizens, including its non-Christians, would still have the freedom to vote or not to vote for a party that acknowledges God in its constitution.

Mr. Roper implies in his article that South Africa is a secular democracy, but doesn’t explain to the reader what he means by this. It is for the sake of democracy, and to protect the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion in South Africa (something the ACDP supports), that this indirect reference needs qualification.

South Africa is not just any secular democracy, but a particular kind – the kind that protects freedom of religion. I have cited elsewhere the work of Dion Forster, Professor of Public Theology at Stellenbosch University.

Forster “explains?why South African Christians should prefer a secular state, and more specifically, the kind of secular state in which ‘the government of the nation doesn’t have any particular religious conviction’. This means citizens will have equal rights and protections before the state, irrespective of their religious or non-religious affiliation. Forster emphasises the need for?religiously neutral secularity?and not?anti-religious secularity.”

Religiously neutral secularity is what we have in South Africa today, as evidenced among other things, in a 2017 High Court ruling that “a school may not promote a single religion, or brand itself as such.”

Mr. Roper argues that “secular democracies…privilege the diversity of human experience over the dictates of myopic religions.” He or anyone else is free to perceive and declare the Christian faith or any other religion as short-sighted. However, he will do well to recognize that religions and the many denominations that exist within them are part of what makes for the diversity of human experience that he aims to defend.

Certainly, in a country whose citizens are as religious as South Africans are, it seems contradictory to defend human diversity while at the same time attacking religion. Furthermore, and as already noted, the ACDP is for freedom of religion. ????????

The roles and rights of parents

Mr. Roper says “the ACDP believes in…the right to physically abuse your child under the guise of discipline,” but offers no basis for such a statement.

Biblical discipline involves more than just corporal punishment. Christians recognise that when corporal punishment is exercised outside of love and without discipleship, it does become a form of abuse.

Considered carefully, the ACDP’s position on corporal punishment speaks to a regulated practice for which parents must be trained. It speaks to South Africa’s national interest, to justice and order in the country, and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity, in this instance, involves the right of parents to govern within the home and without undue interference from the government.???

What alternative to “the rod,” “cut from the tree of Old Testament morality,” does Mr. Roper offer South Africa’s parents? If he took the time to reflect on what precisely the ACDP stands for when it advocates for the rights of parents to discipline their children, Mr. Roper might have been less rushed to take the offensive.

The ACDP’s track record on the right of parents to discipline their children speaks for itself: “The African Christian Democratic Party has worked for many years to protect and defend children.” Former ACDP MP and Whip, Cherrlyn Dudley, said in a 2016 media statement that “attempts to equate abuse and violence with reasonable chastisement or a spanking are disingenuous” and “criminalising spanking does not achieve [the] desired outcome and diverts resources away from where they are most needed.” Government should allow parents the freedom to exercise their responsibility when it comes to disciplining children and devote its attention to more pressing matters, amongst which are gender-based violence, crime, corruption, poverty, and land reform. ??

All said and done, the issue in this instance isn’t so much the merit of the ACDP’s position on parental rights in raising children, but the fact that Mr. Roper didn’t substantiate his claim that the ACDP supports the physical abuse of children. At best, Mr. Roper is guilty of poor argumentation, at worst, he is guilty of mud-slinging.?

On education

Mr. Roper is against the right of parents to decide the content of their children's education – a right that the ACDP supports, including concerning sexual education.

How many parents in South Africa, indeed globally, would be willing to relinquish such a right, especially when they have an understanding of what it would mean to do so? Is the willingness to relinquish such a right not a reflection of the failure to recognise and act upon the significant responsibility that comes with having children and the inherent value and power residing within the young bodies that parents themselves have helped create?

I would think non-Christians parents who have children at public schools value the right to object to their children being instructed in any religious doctrine and to have their objections carefully and fairly considered. Why should the same right to object to a CSE (comprehensive sexual education) curriculum (ultimately shaped by a worldview), not be afforded to religious parents, including Christians? ?

If the decision on the significant matter of what children must learn does not ultimately rest with parents, then with whom? The state? Would this state be the kind that prevailed in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, or, the kind of state in present-day Afghanistan or even contemporary America?

South Africa’s parents should consider carefully the argument made by Dr. De Klerk-Luttig, of the Office for Moral Leadership at Stellenbosch University, that education is the South African government’s biggest failure of the last 25 years.

Giving parents the freedom to influence or speak into the education of their children, to decide how they want their children to be educated, by whom, and on what serves as an important check on the power and the role of the state, as Professor of Political Science at Stellenbosch University, Nicola de Jager, has argued. ??

Admittedly, many parents in South Africa either don’t have the capacity required for making decisions about what their children should and shouldn’t be taught at school or the will to make an informed decision on these matters. Among the reasons for this are apartheid’s ongoing legacy and the failed political leadership of the ANC. However, this state of affairs cannot be used to justify the denial of the freedom of parents to choose. The right to choose must remain, even if parents cannot or don’t want to exercise the right, for whatever reason. The answer to the problem of ill-equipped or ignorant parents is to train and equip, not to add further restrictions on what parents may or may not do.

Marriage, abortion, prostitution and pornography

Mr. Roper aims what he calls “the usual four donkeys of the apocalypse,” beginning with “biblical marriage”. Biblical marriage is a practice, which, while it certainly begins with the union of man and woman, involves more than this. It is, in the words of Dr. Ray Ortlund, author of Marriage and the Mystery of the Gospel, “a gospel issue”. This is why “clarity about its definition matters to Christians.”

However, how “biblical marriage” is defined isn’t so much the issue in this instance as is the notion of protecting religious and/or cultural practice – protecting how social groups choose to define and practice marriage, for example. Admittedly, therefore, I would like to see a change in the ACDP’s use of vocabulary. Rather than “promoting” biblical marriage it should be “protecting” or “defending” biblical marriage. There is a difference.

In a constitutional democracy such as South Africa, the work of promoting Biblical marriage is not the job of a Christian political party, but the responsibility of the Christian Church. A Christian political party may and should, by all legal means necessary, defend “biblical marriage,” assuming a legislative threat against the institution exists in the first place.

The political action of this kind is no different from members of the LGBTQ+ community advocating for their right to marriage. From the Christian’s conceptual or theological perspective, marriage in this community can never be “biblical marriage,” but making such an argument is very different from Christians working to ensure that members of the LGBTQ+ community are denied the right to marry.

Although related to the concept of marriage, the ACDP’s opposition to the proposal that civil servants must perform same-sex marriages is an issue on its own. When the ACDP stood against this proposal it was not taking a stand against the right of two same-sex persons to marry, but a stand for the right of a Christian to recuse him or herself from solemnising the union of two persons of the same sex.

Put differently, there is a difference between the ACDP slamming same-sex marriage, as the title of this article suggests, and the ACDP slamming “a Bill that would compel marriage officers to solemnise same-sex marriages.” The intention is to protect the conviction of people of faith and their right to exercise that conviction, not to deny the right of a same-sex couple to get married. Mr. Roper appears to think otherwise, however. ?????????

He describes the ACDP’s opposition to the remaining three “donkeys” (abortion, prostitution and pornography) as “the policing of women’s bodies by god-kissed men who know better.” Evidence suggests that the ACDP’s opposition to abortion, prostitution and pornography is anything but an attempt at “policing…women’s bodies”. The party has taken an explicit stand against GBV, for example, and defends unborn children, partly because, if allowed to live, some will be women.

A question more serious than whether it is just or not to deny women the right to abort their offspring is the question of when South Africa’s men and women are going to take responsibility for their decisions and actions, particularly as they relate to sex.

I don’t feel the need to say much more about the ACDP’s position on prostitution than what Cheryllyn Dudley already said in this 2009 publication. Having read the former ACDP MP’s statement, and the evidence cited therein, I fail to see how, aside from the porn industry perhaps, there could be any practice that involves the policing of women’s bodies more than the practice of prostitution, legalized or not.

Mr. Roper is critical of the opposition to pornography (a close ally of prostitution). Since pornography helps fuel and create a demand for the modern form of slavery that is sex trafficking (as explained here, here, and here), what precisely does Mr. Roper mean when he refers to “sexuality and freedom”??

On the so-called “paradox” or “hypocrisy” of being simultaneously pro-life, pro-death, and opposed to suicide

Mr. Roper believes the ACDP’s opposition to abortion and assisted suicide contradicts the party’s support for the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes. Leaving aside for the moment the merits of the death penalty, there is no contradiction here. Instead, these three policy positions are perfectly aligned with the party’s worldview – a worldview in which the sanctity of human life is central.

It is a worldview that encourages people to defend those who cannot defend themselves, and that sees the state as responsible for punishing those guilty of capital crimes. On the first score the intention is to protect human life, and on the second, to exercise justice against those who, through their actions, have failed to properly value human life.??

Allow me to conclude by taking from and adding to the final paragraph of Kwame Appiah’s essay, The Democratic Spirit: “In our shared life as a political people, our citizen conversation is ongoing. No one has the last word,” except for God.

?

Craig Bailie has a keen interest in church-state relations and the intersection of Christianity and politics. Although he recently completed studies in applied exegesis, he continues learning. The views expressed are his own. He reserves the right to improve them whenever possible.