Prof. Tinyiko Maluleke, President of the SACC, delivered the following address at a Prayer Service at Mankweng Lutheran Church, Polokwane, prior to the African National Congress' Elective Conference, 16-20 December 2007.

First Reading

The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you." When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.

Second Reading

When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food." Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat." "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered. "Bring them here to me," he said. And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Song

If you believe and I believe
And we together pray
The Holy Spirit must come down
And Africa will be saved

Then Africa will be saved
And Africa will be saved
The Holy Spirit must come down
And Africa will be saved X2

1. Back to the Future: A Nation that Once Was ...

My 14 year old son has taught me many things, from hip-hop to play station two. One of the finer lessons I will always appreciate from him though, relates to a film genre based on a view of the world from the future back to the present. These are the so-called futuristic films in which things are fast-forwarded to fifty or a hundred years or more from now. In such films we get a glimpse of how life will be lived in the future. Inspired and emboldened by the schooling received from my son, find below my attempt to do a futuristic scenario our beloved country of South Africa - sixty years from now.

The year is 2067. The country is South Africa - though I do not know for how much longer it will retain this name. Its capital city is Raiwanistadt - formerly known as Johannesburg but recently named after a famous Taiwanese liberation fighter. A consortium of Saudi and Nigerian businessmen have bought a slice of Raiwanistadt stretching from Newtown, including Braamfonten, Hillbrow and up to Kensington. In twenty years, Soweto has shrunk to less than half its earlier size. Violence and death continue to be the lot of those who live in that God-forsaken township. Midrand, home to 3 million inhabitants, now extends from Muldersdrift to Pretoria West. Being the seat of parliament, Midrand is also home to many diplomats and foreign media correspondents. In 2067 more than 50% of the inhabitants of Raiwanistadt are Chinese and they own and run most of it. In the North, Polokwane has established itself as the premier town. Of the old Polokwane of 60 years ago, only the name remains. It is one of the most expensive towns in the land where only the richest of the rich - most of whom are Brazilian, Chinese and Asian - can afford to live. The few locals who remain continue to eke out a pitiful living in the margins of Polokwane society. For nearly ten years Lekganyane the 6th has been engaged in a long court battle against Pakistonia - a land development company from Islamabad - for the ownership of the land in and around Moria City. Indeed, like the Australian aborigines, the so-called locals are no longer the majority - not in Polokoane not in Fong Toi (formerly known as Kimberly) and not in Raiwanistadt. Two months ago, South Africa held its general elections but the results will only be known once they have been approved in Hong Kong.

To help you understand what has happened, let us delve briefly into the history of this country.

1.1 History

Roughly a hundred years ago, a new nation was born at the foot of the African continent. At that time, the world had given up hope for the peoples of that forsaken land. Before this nation was born and for three hundred years previously; the people who lived in that land had done nothing but fought, pillaged and subjugated one another. It all started when Europeans en route to the east were shipwrecked on the Cape shores and taken in by the locals. Those early encounters of curious hospitality were soon to be replaced by bitter wars of conquest which were to last for three centuries. The indigenous peoples of the land - so-called - came off worst. In a very short period, those who had not been killed were rendered landless, called bastards, considered lazy and inferior. But things were to get worse as subjugation was gradually institutionalised, theorised, ideologized and modernised. Two hundred years later, and using a variety of arguments and strategies, the small white minority had so established itself that they took it upon themselves to divide and rule and oppress. But the resistance by the locals intensified and multiplied. They formed themselves into fierce liberation movements, using a variety of tactics and strategies they began to chip away at the bastion of white minority rule. Many of their leaders were either killed or imprisoned and all of the liberation movements were banned and forced to operate underground.

In the year 1990, the country was stunned when the then-government unbanned the political parties and undertook a programme to release the leaders who had been in prison. It all started with disturbing rumours of negotiations behind doors and behind the scenes between imprisoned leaders and their jailers. But who can forget that day when Nelson and Winnie Mandela raised their fists as he literally walked out of prison. The moment was so powerful, it was surreal. The people were beside themselves with happiness. Their resistance was worth it and their hopes were not in vain. Their chests swelled with pride. While Mandela was not expected to be necessarily bitter, he surprised everyone with his conciliatory politics. Indeed he insisted that a new nation could only be built on reconciliation and mutual acceptance. He was also blessed to have a group of dedicated men and women to work alongside him. Thus was born a great new nation; then the world's youngest democracy. But that was then; now is now.

1.2 The Collapse

But alas within less than a generation, that promising nation was floundering. Within fifteen years, its political parties were at sixes and sevens, rocked by corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Its leaders engaged in the ugliest of wars between and among themselves. Very quickly, the country slid into anarchy as the leaders were one-by-one shown to have no integrity and no real concern for the common good towards which the country was supposed to be working. Meanwhile HIV and AIDS continued to mow down the people by the millions. Those who escaped HIV/AIDS did not escape poverty; those who escaped poverty did not escape the extreme violence; those who escaped the violence in their homes and in the streets, did not escape depression and escalating nervous breakdowns and suicide waves which are sweeping the country.

In the year 2067 an international polling company revealed that after polling 15 million people living in Raiwanistadt they discovered the following startling facts:

• Less than 10% of the inhabitants thought that Nelson Mandela was an Asian saint
• Less than 1% of the people polled know what the phrase "Madiba Magic" stood for
• More than 50% of the inhabitants thought black majority rule was a bad experiment which could never have worked
• More than 60% of the remaining indigenous people wished they were born elsewhere and wished they lived elsewhere
• More than 80% of those who were older than 39 thought it was a miracle that they lived beyond 35
• More than 80% of the people polled - especially the young people - thought how you died was much more important than how you lived.
• The favourite profession of indigenous women was domestic service and the favourite profession of indigenous men was gardening and taxi-driving.

2. It Could All Go Up in Smoke

2.1 Promised Land or Land of Curse?

The abiding lesson of the Old Testament is that nations, including God's favoured nation, are fragile entities. They take long to build - too long to build. But they can be destroyed much more quickly. Beautiful cities and temples which once were a hive of activity and life, can be reduced to rubble and become haunting places of pain and sadness, in an instant. Indeed, the Old Testament story demonstrates to us that no nation is beyond reproach and no kingdom is invincible.

Above all, the Old Testament tells us that nations are more than kings, cities, temples and highways - more than brick and mortar. Nations and kingdoms are created by God and exist only at God's pleasure and grace. People and rulers who forget this imperative, only did so at their own peril! It was the duty of the prophets to keep this reality of fragility and dependence on God's grace, firmly in the eyes of both rulers and peoples. Whatever else the people could forget they were not allowed to forget that God was their God and that God not they themselves was responsible for their exit from Egypt. But in and of itself, escape and exit from Egypt was no panacea and no guarantee for a problem-free hakuna-matata kind of life. Obedience to God was the only guarantee. Such obedience was not defined in some intangible, academic or philosophical ways, for God did not want sacrifices, but justice and mercy, especially to the poorest of the poor in the land. So when they strayed away from God both the leaders and their people; the very land of promise would become a land of terror, full of thorns and snares. When they strayed away from the promises they had made to God and the promises God made to them, their dreams became nightmares and they began to experience the Promised Land as a land of curse and dread.

Indeed for them inhabiting the Promised Land became a bigger challenge than journeying towards it. Imagine their shock when they discovered that the Promised Land was no tabula rasa or virgin territory; the land was taken and they had to struggle to find space for themselves in it! For nearly a hundred years they live in the land of promise but do so off their suitcases, with their swords always next to their beds. They go through a long period of an unstable and insecure environment - the period of the judges - judges being the book from which we have read. All the time, even during the time of monarchy, they live in a situation in which they are constantly reminded - what they have is fragile; it could all go up in smoke.

2.2 From Miracle to Reason, Vision and Godliness

One of the least helpful things we say about our country is to call it a miracle and one of the greatest disservices we do to our leaders, especially Madiba is to call them magicians - the so-called "Madiba magic" phenomenon. Winston Churchill - the war time British prime minister - has been called many things. But never a magician. Nor has Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher, or Kennedy ever been labelled magicians of any sort. Dominant history has always taught us that these were visionaries who rationally led their countries from doom into glory; not by the provision of magic solutions but through the provision of visionary and rational leadership. It is my view that Mandela is as good a visionary leader as any of the leaders I have mentioned - if not a better leader. Yet we have all sat and watched as this great visionary leader - who gave his life to a lifelong dream of freedom - has been reduced to a mere magician. But there is an even more worrying implication in this. With Mandela considered a "magician" the new South Africa is itself considered a miracle - which means that it too is a result of magic rather than vision, sacrifice and moral integrity. Believing that we are citizens of a miracle country, we live as if our future was guaranteed, underwritten and predestined by the gods themselves. Is this the reason why we are a nation that consumes without either innovating or saving? Is this the reason why we all - led by our leaders - wish to get rich quickly and at any cost? Is it because we live in a miracle country that denial of HIV and AIDS continues in spite of overwhelming evidence? Is it because we live in a miracle country that we appear to think that out health and infrastructure problems will be solved miraculously without planning and without implementation and without project execution?

As was the case with the people of Old Testament times we should be constantly reminded that we are not where we are because of miracle and magic. We are not where we are merely because of the intelligence of our current leaders or the favoured nature of our people. There is little magic to our current circumstances. We are where we are because God intervened. There is logic to where we are. That logic is God who has intervened in the unfolding story of this nation. Above all, we dare not forget that we are where we are because of immense sacrifices that have been made by others. Many many lives have been lost. Dignities have been eroded. Communities have been defaced. Psyches have been maimed, souls have been raped and spirits have been murdered. It has been long and hard.

2.2 It Could All Go Up in Smoke - Sooner that we Think!

To return to the futuristic theme with which I started, I cannot over-emphasize that we could lose it all - much more easily than we gained it. Thirteen, fifteen, twenty five years later, it can all be gone! We move into serious trouble when our leaders and when the people of the land think that they are i) entitled to what they have, ii) self-assured that what they have will always be here and iii) are convinced that what we have has been acquired magically and that it will all be retained through magic. These are dangerous assumptions.

This is why we are calling on the nation not merely to intervene, but to intercede for our country, for our people and for our leaders. This is why we are here today to say to the ANC as it prepares for its 52nd conference; we want to pray with you and for you so that God may help you to understand the immensity of your calling in this country at this point in time. We are here today, to say to the media in this country, to say to the political parties in this country to the politicians of this country, in the most humble way possible: Enough! Stop! We have watched you disgrace and smear one another in ugly media wars of words and more recently the fist scuffles and fights inspired by your own conduct. We have heard our leaders call one another names in public. Week after week we are assaulted with scandals - real, surreal, fabricated and premeditated. We are gathered here to say, amongst other things, we have had and heard enough of this. We wish to inform both our media and our politicians that the people of this country find no entertainment in these tragic shenanigans of yours. We have come to ask you all to stop and remember where we come from, as a fledgling nation as a people recently formed! The entire continent of Africa expects a lot from our country. South African owes a debt to the continent and to its people. Above all we as a people have accountability towards God regarding spreading of justice and mercy even as we build a new country and a new world.

3. Introduction to the Story of the Feeding of the Multitudes

3.1 Remembering John the Baptist

In the Gospel of Matthew, the backdrop of the story of Jesus' feeding of the multitudes is a very political scandal, namely: the chilling and shocking story of the chopping off of the head of John the Baptist. After receiving the news of John's violent murder, Jesus retreats into private space in order to mourn this man whom he had called the greatest prophet in Israel.

John the Baptist that simple maverick of a man - whose mission was to announce the coming of Messiah and the coming of the kingdom and in the light of this asking people to repent. He opted out of contemporary society and its values - leading the simplest of simple lifestyles, retreating to the desert from where he launched his evangelistic campaigns. Why would anyone want to kill a simpleton who lived in the desert, dressed in camel hair and subsisted on honey and locusts? Who would want to kill someone with so little ambition that he was willing to play second fiddle to someone else?

Well, Herod did want to kill him. Indeed he had wanted to do so for a long time, but did not quite know how, for he kind-of liked the guy and above all he was convinced that the man was holy. In typical Biblical style, a feeble attempt to absolve Herod from the killing is made - we are told it was his wife Herodias who used her daughter to get to John and the impression is given that Herod was helpless and had no choice but to kill John. But there was more to John's killing than that. He was not a narrow-minded evangelist recluse, unconnected and apathetic. His message was hard-hitting. He called the religious leaders a "brood of vipers" and confronted Herod with his immorality. This is what caused his death - more than anything Herodius and her daughter could have or not have done. Jesus was very aware of the circumstances leading to and surrounding his death.3.2 How Jesus Remembered the Man who was "More than a Prophet"

"What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John ..." (Luke 7:24-28)

Before Jesus feeds the multitudes, Matthew tells us that he went on a private retreat to consider, ponder over and even pray about the news of the death of John the Baptist. Maybe he wanted a moment to mourn John. What did Jesus think and remember of John during that retreat? Below are the possible thoughts Jesus had on John as he mourned him in that private space.

Firstly, the overwhelming after-taste of both the death of John and the manner in which it had occurred was: "Beware whose toes you tread on!" John was killed for speaking truth to power ñreligious power, people power and political power. Jesus must have pondered over this as he considered the path that he himself was to follow.

The second legacy of John which Jesus is likely to have pondered even as he mourned him is that speaking the truth does not make one popular. But John did more. He did not only speak the truth, he lived the truth. This is what gave him both integrity and earned him hatred in equal measure. These things must have been crystal clear to Jesus as he mourned John.

Thirdly, in search of popularity both prophets and leaders sometimes cut the cloth of truth to fit the rulers and the people. How different John was! How brave! Jesus must have thought about this as he committed the soul of John to God in his silent and private prayers.

Fourthly, from the life and times of John the Baptist Jesus realised that speaking and living the truth is costly in more ways than one. Living the truth may lead one to a lonely guerrilla-warfare kind of life in which one operates from the desert/margins of society - clothed in camel hair and living on locusts - making well-calculated and well-timed incursions and withdrawals from society. Above all, it may simply cost one's life as it did with John. Nothing brought this reality more home to Jesus than the sight or thought of the grinning but lifeless head of John carried in a plate over the heads of loud, boisterous and drunk guests and then delivered on the lap of Herod Antipas!

Fifth, from John the Baptist Jesus must have considered how the worth of humans is in the quality and purpose of the life they lead and not in what they have. Here is someone who had nothing but he had so much impact that he was considered dangerous enough to warrant elimination. These things must have occupied Jesus' thoughts as he pondered the demise of this prophet.

Sixth, Jesus realised that in John we meet a man who was both aware of and willing to admit his limitations - a rare quality among men, among prophets and among leaders even in those days. John realised and openly admitted that while he had the voice for preaching repentance and while he all the skills and techniques for dipping people into the Jordan, he had no clue whatsoever about the fireworks of the Holy Spirit. Surely this must have been one of the things Jesus admired of John the Baptist. Surely this must have been one of the reasons Jesus called him "more than a prophet". Seventh, it must have struck Jesus that despite some people wanting to sow divisions between him and John, and even as other approached John wishing to baptise him as the Messiah, John remained true to whom he was. John realised that the success of his mission depended not on himself but on his successor whose path he had come to prepare. From John's perspective there would be no succession battle. There would be no succession debate. John had his role and he had carried it out. Upon encountering Jesus, John spoke out "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John1:29) Upon encountering Jesus, John declared: "He must increase; I must decrease." (John 3:30) Jesus must have reflected on all these words and action of John the Baptist.

4. A Rude Interruption: The Coming of the Crowd

But Jesus was not allowed to ponder over John for too long. Once the crowds worked out where Jesus was, they pursued him on foot. Unaware that that he was in mourning and in remembrance of the man who was "more than a prophet" the crowd rudely interrupted Jesus. They thronged towards him. Among them were the sick, the lame and the hungry. Jesus could have been annoyed with this interruption. But he was not. Perhaps he saw the approach of the crowd, as an immediate opportunity to honour the memory of John the Baptist. When he saw the crowd, he had compassion on them and begun healing the sick among them.

4.1 A Clash of Visions and Leadership Styles

In all four versions of the story as reflected in the four gospels the disciples' advice Jesus to lose the crowd. "Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding villages and countryside and find food and lodging, because we are in a remote place here." Their arguments are compelling. In the Johannine version Philip points out that eight months of wages would not buy enough bread for each of the members of the crowd to have a bite. As if to tease Jesus and show him up another disciple says: "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many." All versions of the story - while differing in detail - are nevertheless agreed that the disciples wanted the crowd dismissed.

But Jesus rejects the basic suggestion of the disciples and rejects it comprehensively. It is not merely a difference of opinion. It is a clash of visions and a clash of models of leadership. This story reveals a leadership style which could be instructive for our politicians and ministers alike!

4.2.1 Seeing Persons in the Crowd

In Matthew (14:14) we are told that when Jesus, who was on a momentary solitary retreat is pursued by the crowds he reacts not with anger and frustration, but he sees the large crowd and immediately has compassion on them. This is the first difference between his vision and that of his disciples. He looks at the crowd and has compassion on them. How does one have compassion on such a "thing" as a crowd - a mass of undifferentiated people? How did Jesus manage to have compassion for such a thing? He must have seen more than a horde, a swarm, a throng or a block of statistics. He saw people, tall, fat, insecure, fearful, hungry, hopeful, men, women, children, good, bad, poor, rich persons. That is the only way he could have felt compassion for this "thing" called a crowd that pursued him and rudely interrupted his retreat. He did not see the crowd as a "thing". On the contrary the disciples probably saw no more than amorphous multitudes swarming towards and in front of Jesus. They did not see the people in the crowd. For them the shortest route out of the looming predicament - of controlling and feeding a large hungry crowd - is to lose the crowd.

4.2.2 Loving a Crowd

The second significant difference, whereas Jesus upon seeing the large crowd is inspired in the direction of compassion, the disciples appear to be motivated by an unspoken "fear" of a large and hungry crowd. Perhaps they had premonitions of Bob Marley song "a hungry man is an angry man". They fear the crowd whereas Jesus loves the people and He loves them genuinely!

4.2.3 "It's the people Stupid" - Bill Clinton's First Election Campaign

Third the reason the disciples fear the crowd is that they see the crowd NOT as an important and main site of ministry but probably as a temporary distraction in their cozy and "special" relationship with Jesus. Their "ministry" is first and foremost about their perceived special place in the life of Jesus rather than service to the crowds of their times. Theirs is a narcissistic ministry - ministry to themselves and about themselves. Theirs is power ministry - i.e. their own fascination with power and their proximity to it. Indeed, in advising Jesus to lose the crowd they may even think that they are providing ministry to him! The "crowd" is an incidental variable in their configuration of ministry. Instead of eradicating poverty they wish to eradicate the poor! They see themselves as the only legitimate locale and object of Jesus' ministry!

4.2.4 Trusting the People, Seeing Potential

Fourth, not only do the disciples harbour an unspoken fear for the people; they also have a basic distrust of the crowd. By contrast when Jesus looks into the crowd, he sees possibilities and sees people with potential. In the crowd, the disciples see candidates for social welfare grants whereas Jesus sees people who have it within and among themselves to contribute towards their own "salvation". Where the disciples see objects of welfare and charity Jesus sees human beings capable of contributing meaningfully in changing their own circumstances. The disciples see parasites and objects of help but Jesus sees agents. The disciples operate with a "service delivery model" in terms of which the poor sit and wait for service to be delivered when Jesus operates with a notion of service that involves the people because even with Jesus around the safer assumption is to say "people should know best what they need".

4.2.5 How to Give them Something to Eat

Fifth, when Jesus says, "you give them something to eat" it is not so much that he trusts his disciples as it is that he trusts the potential and contribution of the people. "You give them something to eat" is not an invitation to arrogance and presumption on the part of the disciples but an invitation to humility, because without trusting in the potential of the crowd, the disciples will not be able to give the crowd anything. "You give them something to eat" is built on the assumption that though hungry and destitute, the people do have a clear idea as to what they would like to eat and that they already have within and among them considerable resources and potential to help themselves. "You give them something to eat" is therefore an invitation to listening with eyes and seeing with ears - an invitation to a new way of listening and a new way of hearing. This is what I have termed "agency of the poor ministry". "You give them something to eat" is not an invitation to corruption, but an invitation to joint action. This is not a quotation of the late Mobutu's "Les chevres bruts la ou il sont attaches" in terms of which each Zaerean was supposed to "eat from around the tree to which they had been tied".

So Jesus finds a boy with two loaves and five fish, with these he solves the perennial and great economic problem - how to grow the cake and how to share the cake - this then is the real miracle in the story.

4.2.6 It Grows as it is Shared ...

It is not based on buying power (shopping) as the disciples were suggesting, but in sharing power! It multiplies not through hording or miracle (such as the lotto) but through sharing. It multiplies because it is shared not before it is shared. This is a radical economic model. This is growth through sharing and distribution, not through hoarding and privatization!

4.2.7 People must Eat Now not Tomorrow

Unlike Marie Antoinette (another Herodius character), the disciples did not say "let them eat cake" they said "send them away" to buy food for themselves. But both Mary Antoinette and the disciples appear to agree in their assumptions, namely that the i) people have money to buy bread and that ii) they do have somewhere to go. But these assumptions could be so wrong and so cruel. What about those who do not have money and those who are homeless? Thirdly, both Marie Antoinette and the disciples appear to think that people can postpone hunger and subsequently their need to eat. But like everyone else people must eat now - in this world, before they die!

4.2.8 Not Romantisizing the Poor

Sixth, this ministry is not about romanticizing the poor anymore than it is about ignoring the rich and powerful. The poor are no amorphous entity. The poor have names and poverty is not "simply an idea". The poor are real and there is nothing either philosophical or romantic about lack and need. In saying that the poor have potential and in saying that the poor have resources we must not fall into the trap of romanticisation. We must not merely call them agents in order to get the rich off the hook. We must not call them agents merely in order to help the middle class to sleep better at night aby assuaging their consciences. Being poor places many limitations on the ability of persons to be agents. Jesus comes along to enable their agency not to deny, not to romanticize, not to philosophise and certainly not to stifle it.5. Conclusion: On Being Ruled by Pythons

In one of my trips to Yaounde, Cameroon, I chatted with the taxi driver who was ferrying me to the hotel. I asked him why Cameroonians appeared content to have the same president for more than 25 years - president Paul Biya. "Is it not time for change?" I asked innocently. There was a look of shock and displeasure in the face of the driver. "Clearly you are a foreigner who knows nothing about Cameroon," he said. He then went on to tell me that Cameroonians were satisfied with Biya. But this was not because Biya was a good man. Everybody knew that he was corrupt. But the fact is that he had been corrupt for so long that there was no more scope for him and his cronies to do any more damage to the country with their corruption. The point is that Biya has everything he needs. "What do you mean?" I asked. "Well he is like a python whose stomach is full. He cannot harm anyone anymore. He can only lie around whi le he digests what he has eaten. In the meantime we too, can eat." The taxi driver went on to explain to me that replacing Paul Biya with someone else may be more costly to the country as the new man or woman together with their cronies, will be hungry and no doubt will start looting the country from scratch. What a sad definition of democracy! What a sad comment on the state of democracy in Africa. What a redefinition of succession and/or lack thereof. Allow me to say that this is a type of democracy we must avoid by all costs in this country. This is a definition of democracy which we should not accept. Followers deserver their rulers. Inasmuch as we have spent time talking about leadership, what remains yet to be done is a discussion of followership. Inasmuch as we have an idea of what kind of leader we want, we should also work out what kind of follower is needed in South Africa at this time. But that is a discussion for another time.

As we gather here today, I wish to suggest that we have outlined above some of the key qualities of leadership that the people of this country are looking for. These are the qualities which we are convinced that the members of all political parties, including the ruling party, are looking for in their leaders. To recapitulate, I summarize them below:

• a sensitivity to how we have come to this point in the history of our country
• a John the Baptist-like humility
• a John the Baptist-like truthfulness
• an ability to see people behind and beyond the statistics
• a burning love for people
• a clear awareness that it is all about people
• a willingness to recognize and harness the potential of the people
• an ability to work with and not on or for the people
• an appreciation of the power of sharing over the power of buying
• an appreciation of the urgency of the situation we are in
• not denying, romanticising, and philosophising the poor

We pray:

If you believe and I believe
And we together pray
The Holy Spirit must come down
And Africa will be saved

Then Africa will be saved
Then Africa will be saved
The Holy Spirit must come down
And Africa will be saved

Amen