Address by the Rev Dr Molefe Tsele, SACC General Secretary,
to the Diakonia Council of Churches Breakfast Briefing

Durban, 30 October 2001

Introduction

I have recently discovered that my work as General Secretary involves a lot of critical interventions, from the Bredell Land invasion crisis to the current Zandspruit conflict. At Bredell we came down decidedly on the side of the families who were being evicted after the court ruled that they must vacate the area. Even today, nearly five months after the event, the SACC is still looking after nearly 60 families housed in churches at Tembisa. At a prayer service in Zandspruit last Sunday, we stood on the side of the Zimbabweans. At one stage I declared in a public gathering: "Today, we as the Church are Zimbabweans". The mostly rowdy gathering did not take this comment lightly, and it nearly caused a riot. But the point is that this is what should define us as the Church: being in solidarity with those who are vulnerable, who are excluded as a result of their social situation--the poor, refugees, the homeless, the unemployed, etc.

More than seven years after the attainment of our liberation, we are still confronted with the social dynamics that are periodically played out in Bredell, Zandspruit and many other informal settlements, rural dorps and farming communities of our nation. Faced with continuing poverty, disintegrating social systems, and the ascendance of value systems that prize material gains over social relationships, the Church is compelled to define anew its role and unique contribution to public life.

For many of our generation, who grew up in a world polarized by the ideological divide of East and West, the events of September 11 have unceremoniously bundled us into a new era, one fraught with uncertainties and for which we are ill-prepared. All of us believed that the new wars were going to be fought by anti-globalisation activists on the doorsteps of McDonald's fast food outlets, at World Bank and IMF gatherings, and on the streets of Seattle.

Little did we realize that the new flashpoint of world conflict would be religion and culture. Suddenly, the great superpower finds itself exposed and vulnerable to a new form of terror, one whose vanguard are not political ideologues or economic actors, but people driven by faith and culture. Finding ourselves in this new world, we must ask: what will the Church's unique contribution be--not only the Church globally, but also the Church in Africa? How are we to respond to the growing fusion of American patriotism and American Christianity? What are we to do when Churches in America pray for the pilots who rain their bombs on the poor of Afghanistan? I am raising these questions because, to a great extent, the post-September 11 world implies that we must be willing to interrogate every aspect of the power relationships we have known to date.

The Church and the African Agenda

The pertinent question for us is: What is to be our contribution to the African Agenda and the new world situation? Does Africa have anything to offer to the world at this historical juncture? It is in this context that I want to broach what has become a sensitive topic: The role and impact of President Thabo Mbeki in the promotion of the African Agenda. We cannot ignore the fact that the President has imprinted his stamp on our continent's current direction, or that he has become the primary pilot of our new course. The question is whether he is the kind of pilot who inspires us to sit back, relax and entrust ourselves to his abilities? Can we be confident that we will have a safe--even if bumpy--landing? Will we land at all? Or are we on a voyage to nowhere?

These questions must be posed, especially by those of us who were once passionate about the liberation of our country. And, unfortunately, we cannot help but recognise that we ask these questions against the backdrop of a growing wave of what we can politely call Mbeki critics in the media. The critics include respected academics, some church leaders, community activists and even trade unionists. Of course, controversy sells papers, inviting speculation that the media is orchestrating the campaign. For us as the Church, we cannot avoid this debate, because President Mbeki's legacy is as real as the reality of the new South Africa.

Church-State Relationships: Finding a New Role in Public Life

One of the sad things we see today is how those in power, the ruling party in particular, tend to instrumentalize the Church. The Church is generally seen as a nuisance that must be appeased by hand outs. I often get hot under the collar when I see Church leaders treating political leaders like African royalty, sometimes even interrupting a worship service because the Premier or a Cabinet minister has arrived. All politicians have totalitarian tendencies. They want to subsume all power under themselves. They cannot deal with the notion that some people are not accountable to them. So the Church is seen as a power that comes in handy when they want to address the masses to propagate their party manifesto. Otherwise, they have no use for us.

Some have simply no respect for the Church--possibly for good reasons, given that we often fail to take ourselves seriously, not merely as an opposing power, but as people with a particular mission. One Cabinet Minister is known to joke about churches in ANC circles, holding the view they have nothing to offer. The well-known attack on churches by Kader Asmal in Cape Town during the Human Rights Day earlier this year will not be forgotten easily by many Christians. It was left to Allan Boesak to respond--from his cell in Pollsmoor--to the Minister's statement. We need to mention of course that Minister Asmal later tendered an apology for his unfortunate remarks.

Are we useful tools for the perpetuation of the ANC's political agenda, remembered only when needed, or do we have our own agenda? Should we be part of the opposition coalition "fighting back", or should we simply play a so-called watchdog role? Are we partners together with the government in the struggle for transformation, poverty eradication and a democratic, non-racial, united South Africa?

Deciding how to relate to government remains an extremely difficult task, fraught with landmines. The ANC is no longer simply a liberation movement. It is a ruling political party, one which sometimes pursues policies and actions with which we cannot associate ourselves with an easy conscience.

For example, we continue to differ with the government on the current arms procurement package. Recently, we had an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Defense to communicate our National Conference decision expressing our opposition to the arms deal. The meeting ended with something of crisis for us. The Minister's explanation challenged us to decide whether we should continue to oppose the deal on principle, or whether we must engage the complex technical questions it raises. To date, we have taken the view that the defence procurement package cannot be justified in the context of current social needs, especially the challenge of poverty; that South Africa does not require the kind of artillery being acquired because we are not threatened by external enemies; and that the promised the benefits from the off-sets accompanying the deal are exaggerated.

We must therefore clarify our position as Churches. What exactly is the basis of our opposition? Are we against any arms procurement, period. Or are we saying, if it has to occur a strong case must be made? Are we against the army and navy, or are we saying it can only be entertained in proportion to what we spend on social delivery? What is the acceptable percentage for that? These issues were not sufficiently clarified until our meeting with the Minster, and I think it is essential that we deliberate on them.

We have also differed with government on economic policy, including GEAR and related policies such as privatisation and trade liberalisation. We have distanced ourselves from government's gospel of GEAR, seeing it as nothing more than a home-brewed World Bank-style structural adjustment programme. Comparable schemes have plunged many Third World countries deeper into debt while forcing them to reduce social spending and to deregulate their economies. These policies effectively usurp the power of the people to use political institutions to shape economic policy. Instead, a wealthy minority are permitted to acquire public assets at rock bottom prices and to auction them to global corporations or other wealthy magnates. No matter how many times Minister Manuel tries to justify GEAR, no matter how many "spins" he gives to it, the reality is that this is an anti-poor policy and a clear reversal of the RDP.

Thirdly, we have to pronounce our categoric opposition to the casino, gambling, and lottery culture and the values it promotes. With this comes the culture of elitism, conspicuous consumption and vulgar material accumulation. The looting of public assets through ill-advised public programmes--such as the building of a Parliamentary village in the Northern Province--constitutes another installment in the human history of how the poor are constantly failed by those who should know better.

When we talk of relationships with government, we must ask ourselves whether we endorse any of these trends or whether we stand in principled opposition to anti-poor policies in government whenever and wherever they may emerge.

It is up to us to decide whether we see ourselves as being in alliance with a ruling party that pursues such policies, an organisation with whom we had joined forces in the struggle. Alternatively, are we necessarily part of some opposition alliance? Unlike COSATU and the SACP, the SACC is not in any sort of formal alliance with the ANC. It is neither necessary nor desirable that we be in alliance with a government in power. To be in alliance with a persecuted political movement is one thing, but to become its ally in government is another. The problem for South Africa is that government tends to see non-support as opposition, and even such opposition is interpreted in terms of an "anyone who is not with us is against us" dichotomy.

To be sure, we need to define our position independent of other parties. The government's critics, be they in the media, NGOs or political parties, also tend to think that if you are not with them, then you are unqualified supporters of President Mbeki. For our part, we have argued that it is issues that will ultimately determine our position in every case. To that end, we will, in some instances, join forces with the Treatment Action Campaign in demanding the supply of drugs to pregnant women with HIV; and with the same vigour, join forces with the government against pharmaceutical companies in demanding that the drugs be made accessible at ethical prices.

The current ambiguous relationship between Church and government indicates that the times are clearly difficult for us. The simple answer is that we are not sure whether we should co-operate or keep a distance. What is clear, is that we must run away from an incestuous cohabitation with government. To do otherwise would be to neglect our mission as a Church. We would cease to exist as an autonomous entity.

The problem we face is how to assume a critical posture without becoming anti-government or alternatively, how to identify with specific policies of government (such as its integrated rural development programme) without reducing ourselves to being pro-government. What troubles me more is the creeping insensitivity and arrogance in some sectors of government, where genuine disagreement is interpreted as disloyalty. During the Bredell saga, some Ministers adopted a hostile posture, choosing to see every poor person there as either a PAC land invader, a foreigner or a greedy shack lord who wanted to turn his shack into a spaza shop or to rent it out. When, as churches, we stood on the side of the squatters, we were classed as naïve, ignorant and a nuisance

It is a matter of concern to us that government appears to believe that churches must either show unwavering support or be treated like political opposition. We should hasten to add that we have often allowed ourselves to be misused by groups seeking to push their own anti-government agendas. The recent Medical Research Council AIDS report is a case in point. The facts are that the report was leaked to churches before it was official. It was leaked with a note indicating that the government wanted to suppress the report and urging the Church to speak out. I was invited to join a press conference to denounce the government for this supposed affront. Fortunately, I abstained because I felt I needed more information. As it happened, some churches went on record, accusing President Mbeki of stifling the report. One week later, the Chairperson of the MRC released the report officially. He denied that there was ever any pressure from government to suppress the report--it simply had not been ready for release. But we had already gone on record making unsubstantiated claims.

My view is that if our error is motivated by a sincere belief that our actions will assist the cause of the voiceless, then we can hold our heads with pride. But sometimes we blunder simply because we are eager to be seen to be standing up to the government. Since joining the SACC, I have been contacted by various media houses. Almost invariably, their line of question is the same: Are you happy with what the government is doing? Does the SACC support the government on this or that issue?

Fashioning Consensus in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS

It is perhaps proper to examine this question in relation to the government's stance on HIV/AIDS and the role of President Mbeki on the issue.

Broadly, there are two prevailing streams of thought about the government's position. One is that the government is in denial, choosing to diminish the scale of the epidemic and the crisis it represents. Public concern is portrayed as a product of some mischievous activists and reactionaries who want to derail the government's programme.

The other stream claims that President Mbeki subscribes to dissident views and effectively imposes this perspective on the rest of his Cabinet who cannot risk expressing a view different from the President's. It is argued that the President should refrain from expressing his opinions if hey are different to the mainstream. He should keep silent, because the risk is that some of his colleagues may be forced to differ with him, and public debates are not easily countenanced within the ANC.

It is necessary to challenge what is clearly false in this debate. First, we must abandon the notion that the government is in denial about AIDS if that is meant to imply that the President is unmoved by the suffering and loss associated with AIDS. In other words, we need to work from the premise that there is goodwill in the government, that there is an awareness of the crisis presented by AIDS, and that for its part, the government is responding as best it can.

But we must also accept that ours is a very unique President, a President who expresses his views forthrightly on most issues, one whose creativity and vision are evident in his ambitious Millennium Africa Recovery Plan. We also need to acknowledge that this President does not enjoy cordial relationships with the media as a norm. In short, President Mbeki, as a person and as a leader, is controversial. Would the campaign against AIDS be better-served by the absence of the President's voice?

Where does the Church stand on this issue? Our starting point is that AIDS is a serious challenge. AIDS confronts us with difficult dilemmas which our traditional ethical and sexual morality are not well-prepared to address. We are also aware that there are commercial aspects to the treatment of AIDS which cannot be ethically justified. This is the case where poor Third World countries are expected to purchase expensive drugs from wealthy countries, especially when this means a choice of abandoning the fight against other diseases afflicting them. We are alarmed when, in order to procure these medications--drugs that do not actually heal the disease, but merely fight the most acute symptoms--poor countries are expected to descend deeper into debt and poverty. And we are all the more outraged when nations are expected to ignore other social priorities--such as hunger, lack of clean water, and general poverty--in their quest for these drugs.

Somehow, in the din of the debate, we fail to hear what the issues really are. We are so eager to label each other "dissident" and "orthodox", drawing neat distinctions between the converts and those in denial.

Our major role as Churches is to assist the nation to have a healthy conversation and even debate about AIDS without demonising or political point-scoring. Knowing how difficult it is for politicians to resist this temptation--that is, to refrain from taking advantage--Churches should see this as their opportunity to contribute to the search for a solution.

But our major contribution should be in saving the President from a battle he will never win. This is the battle of image and perception. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many times President Mbeki says otherwise, he will always be associated with people who do not believe that there are links between HIV and AIDS. Yet I do not believe that the President should opt out of the AIDS debate, if only because there is merit in his warnings that we should not make the mistake of isolating the pandemic from its largely African context. The soaring incidence of the disease in Africa cannot be delinked from the poverty of most African communities. Those who deny this connection are dishonest.

Our starting point should be the development of a creedal statement. We distinguish clearly between what we know and what we do not know. We must be willing to admit that there is much that remains unknown, such as the effects of various drugs on different people. What is known, however, if reduced to a creedal formula, might read as follows:

1. I believe that HIV causes AIDS.
2. I understand that there is no cure for AIDS known to humankind at present.
3. I understand that whilst AIDS attacks people of various classes and stations in life, the poor are most vulnerable to its impact.
4. I understand that a healthy lifestyle and proper nutrition can extend the life of people living with HIV/AIDS.
5. I understand that a responsible and moral sexual lifestyle can contribute to containing the spread of AIDS.
6. I understand that a regime of anti-retroviral drugs, despite the side effects that accompany it, can alleviate acute symptoms of the disease.
7. I pledge to promote faithfulness in relationships and responsible conduct, including the use of protective measures.
8. I pledge to help fight ignorance and myths about the disease and any form of discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS.
9. I pledge to care for people infected with and affected by HIV and AIDS, especially orphans.
10. I believe with God's help and in partnership we will overcome this major human and national crisis.

THIS I PLEDGE.

Possibly we need to make two proposals. First, that President Mbeki appoint an AIDS Czar, a special position at a Ministerial level with responsibility for being the President's Special Advisor on AIDS, acting as the government's spokesperson on the disease, facilitating the co-ordination of AIDS-related public health initiatives, and serving as the nation's leading fighter of the pandemic. The post should be filled by someone who can bring both stature and expertise to the job, preferably a person such as Judge Edwin Cameron. The work of the AIDS Czar would complement and supplement the efforts of the South African National AIDS Council, headed by Deputy President Jacob Zuma. This Council should be transformed into the President's Commission on AIDS and should be charged with leading the nation's fight against AIDS.

Second, in order to fund the office of the AIDS Czar and finance other urgently-required programmes--such as the provision of anti-retroviral drugs to all pregnant women living with HIV and their newborns, services for children orphaned by AIDS, and funeral assistance for AIDS victims--we propose that a special AIDS tax be considered.

Conclusion

We have entered a new era of Church-State relationships. There are two permanent threats to the Church in South Africa. One is the seduction of power, where the Church enjoys the comforts of association with those in power and ultimately adopts the government's ideological worldview. This is a serious threat for any church in any era. American churches today face a similar threat as they experience pressure to demonstrate their "patriotism" by supporting the American government's war against Afghanistan.

The other danger is that the Church will fail to distinguish between political opposition and prophetic dissent. In this instance, the Church misinterprets any disagreement with government as a fulfilment of its prophetic ministry. It is as if to be a real church, a true church, all one needs to do is to oppose the government. This stance ignores the fact that there are many who oppose the government out of vested class interests rather than a concern for justice or morality.

What then is the alternative to these errors? My counsel is that churches in South Africa should improve their tools of perception. We must develop our models of being present where humanity is in need. We must adjust our senses to hearing the genuine agonies of the poor, not what they have been conditioned by the media to repeat. We must see the inner depth of pain and despair amongst ordinary people.

Having determined these, we must then muster the courage to speak out boldly and clearly and passionately. We must speak in full awareness of the risks that such speaking entails, whether we are dubbed government lackeys by the opposition or accused by those in power of being reactionary elements. The pivotal question for us is whether we are in touch with the poor on whose behalf we profess to speak and act. Obviously we cannot claim any exclusive status in this regard. We are not the sole representatives of the poor. But we can say with certainty that where we disagree with the government, it is because of policies that we believe do not serve the interests of the poor. And we must voice our reservations without apology. Clearly this requires that we act in a responsible and informed manner and without partisan motives. Where we are unsure, let us err on the side of the poor rather than on the side of the powerful. If we later learn that we have been misinformed or have made a misjudgement, we must be willing to acknowledge our error with humility.