South African Religious Leaders Critique Summit, Governments

By Ethan Vesely-Flad
Friday, November 1, 2002
 

A series of interviews by The Witness in August and September 2002 with religious leaders in South Africa reveal an increasing sense of disenchantment with their nation's political leadership.

The conversations were set against the backdrop of the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (WSSD, more info at www.johannesburgsummit.org), which was ultimately seen by many to have been a failure. Prior to the Summit, some held high hopes that this international event could finally build effective international mechanisms to address economic, environmental, and health challenges around the world. Even partway through the process, as hopes dwindled, some still tried to remain positive. Molefe Tsele, general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, compared his respect for the working climate to the negative aura that dominated the World Conference Against Racism the previous year. "Anyone who attended Durban knew that it was about to collapse at any point. People who went sought to break it down. Here there are many difficulties, but a good faith effort to address the issues."

However, the strong resistance of the U.S., a handful of other countries, and corporate lobbyists to specific timetables for implementing these goals deeply frustrated many non-governmental representatives. This polarization was fairly predictable. Over the past two years, the U.S. has been lambasted worldwide for taking unilateral positions on a whole range of issues -- the Kyoto climate change treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the WCAR, and other international policy protocol. The Bush administration's willingness to stake out its own path at the WSSD was nothing new -- indeed, the conference itself was a follow-up event to the "Earth Summit" held 10 years prior in Rio de Janeiro, where the same dynamic had been witnessed. In Rio, the U.S. government, ironically then led by the first President Bush, was seen as an isolationist power using obstructionist tactics against treaties to protect biological diversity, slow global warming and create development initiatives. It was not a surprise to hear once again the rhetoric of resisting neo-colonialism through plaintive calls for greater action and accountability by the U.S. and other wealthy countries.

So for some observers, the truly interesting dynamic during the Johannesburg Summit was an increasing willingness by people in the Global South to critique their own governments. Njongonkulu Ndungane, leader and archbishop of the Anglican Church in the Province of Southern Africa, stated: "We need to see that we have a commitment not just from the North, the developed world, in the areas of debt cancellation, fair trade, and treating the developed world with fairness and equity . . . [but] the leadership of the developing world shouldn't privatize children's education, health, food security, and access to clean water, among other things."

This challenge is clearly visible in concerns expressed about the "New Partnership for Africa's Development" (NEPAD) initiated in July 2002 by African heads of state at the G-8 Summit. Mongezi Guma, an Anglican priest who serves as executive director of the Ecumenical Service for Socio-Economic Transformation (ESSET), offered his analysis: "The NEPAD document is schizophrenic; it's as if it were written by two different people. The first part critiques a neo-liberal agenda, and then the second buys into that agenda."

Tsele was similarly direct in his misgivings: "To us, it's an important distinction that the 'partnership' in NEPAD must be a partnership with the people of the continent first and foremost. . . The criticism we have launched is in marketing, in positioning themselves [African heads of state] to get a buy-in from the North, they left their people behind. NEPAD is an important vision. . . It speaks to what every African knows, that this continent must change. But you can not have people from outside doing it for us. It must come from Africans themselves -- not African leaders, ordinary Africans themselves must be committed to see a new Africa."

The South African Situation

1994 marked the end of apartheid in South Africa, with the election of its first democratically chosen government. Despite the thrill of that historical moment, when Nelson Mandela assumed the presidency as leader of the African National Congress (ANC), many religious and community leaders cautioned their citizens and the world community to not expect change to occur too quickly. Apartheid, instituted by the National Party government in 1948, had been legally, socially and psychologically entrenched into the nation for 46 years. There were some who argued that the process of changing the society into a truly free state would take decades as well.

The honeymoon appears to be over. More than eight years into the development of a post-apartheid nation, some of those religious leaders are increasingly willing to express their unhappiness with a series of policy decisions of the ANC government. The ANC and the country are now led by President Thabo Mbeki, elected in 1999 to be Mandela's successor. During the first couple years of his leadership the historically aligned political left was willing to give the Mbeki government some leeway. However, its decision in 2001 to spend millions of U.S. dollars on military armaments -- instead of using that money toward social services -- appears to have opened the floodgates to criticism. As Guma said, commenting on the role of the church community, "We must be a force to question the ANC."

The two areas of particular concern are endemic poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. AIDS is an undeniable priority since South Africa has the largest reported number of cases of HIV in the world: Some estimates suggest over 20 percent of its population of 42 million are infected with the virus. Despite this massive problem, a culture of denial and stigmatization prevails. Denise Ackerman, an Anglican laywoman who teaches at the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch, condemned the government for its role in this morass. "More pernicious than individual denial has been the denial by the South African state that its citizens are trapped in a pandemic." She added sadly, "As the world watches in dismay and people die daily, President Thabo Mbeki and his cabinet have spent more than two years debating 'scientific questions' in regard to HIV/AIDS, opinions which were greatly informed by dissident views on the subject, while refusing virtually free treatment to pregnant women which would greatly reduce the number of infected babies born."

Tsele concurred, "The government policy is misdirected to the extent that it seeks to pronounce on medical issues, when in actuality very few of them have competency in that. Leave that to doctors to tell us whether this drug is safe or not safe; it's not any minister or politician who knows the difference between drugs." And Ndungane summarized in a matter-of-fact manner, "I think that the leadership of this country has failed the people of this country in not addressing HIV/AIDS [at the WSSD]."

With an estimated 13 million people unemployed, and over a million jobs lost since 1994, the economic scenario is the other obvious agenda item for the nation. David Beetge, Bishop of Highfelt (a region just northwest of Johannesburg), reported sober statistics to a visiting group of Anglicans. "We are still living under an apartheid economy. Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, and to a lesser extent Port Elizabeth have very wealthy regions. My office is only 25 miles from Jo'burg, and we face 37 percent unemployment in that town. Farther into my diocese, my poorest parish community has 90 percent unemployment." The singular challenge of developing an equitable system of economic growth is obvious.

In this context, Archbishop Ndungane questioned the government's priorities in choosing the site for hosting the WSSD. The government conference was held in Sandton, an incredibly wealthy and very white community that sits just a couple miles from Alexandra, a very poor black township. "This Summit was billed as providing improvements in Alexandra, and Alex is still Alex. Yet Sandton's roads and everything were improved. So you ask yourself a question," inquired Ndungane, "Why the choice of Sandton? There are plenty of other places where this could have been held to benefit the people."

Douglas Torr, coordinator of the Anglican Diocese of Johannesburg's social responsibility program, is working on a campaign for a Basic Income Grant (BIG). The BIG would provide financial resources -- a proposed monthly compensation of 100 Rand (about US$9) -- to every citizen to help them lift themselves out of poverty. He led an effort to develop a "human chain" between Alexandra and Sandton during the Summit, symbolically linking the needs of the poor with the high-level decision-makers, but it was faced with stiff government resistance. "The government has been totally inflexible, there has been no negotiation," said Torr, adding, "We've been forced to have a march that is entirely in Sandton, entirely in an area of prosperity, entirely outside of big-walled houses." Torr noted that the cost of the BIG initiative would have been easily covered if the government had not spent so much money last year on armaments -- and even now the expense is well within reason, if the ANC would show the political will to address this issue.

Hope for the Future

Despite these major concerns, and special misgivings about the work being done by the South African government, most religious leaders still offered signs of encouragement. While there was little sense that the documents being produced at the sustainable development summit would themselves create change, "the fact that so many people from various NGOs came to Johannesburg to show concern for the well-being of the voiceless, that in itself is a plus," offered Ndungane. In fact, the efforts by Torr and others to create a visible link of humans hearkened back to a vigil held two years ago in the United Kingdom to protest the international debt crisis. Ndungane was there, and cited that story as a witness to what can happen when people truly work together. "I think the Jubilee 2000 movement is a very clear example of how ordinary people can address an issue. It was that human chain in Birmingham, where some 70,000 people stood together while the G-8 were meeting, which forced Tony Blair to come out and listen."

A significant role for the church in a post-apartheid South Africa clearly continues to be one of offering a prophetic voice. "The church has a right and a responsibility to hold up government decisions to a lens of moral scrutiny," said Ndungane. Going forward, its major challenge is just like that of the African leaders in the NEPAD initiative: to not only speak prophetically, but also to bring its people along in the process. Building on the energy of the powerful Jubilee movement, whose ongoing efforts most recently led France to cancel millions of dollars in debt owed by Mali in West Africa, and on a series of small but steady victories in the AIDS pandemic, there is cause for hope.

Ethan Vesely-Flad is editor of The Witness, and is based in New York City. He may be reached by email at ethan@thewitness.org.
 

Published by The Witness (www.thewitness.org), November 1, 2002.

Original article  |  Contents