A Discussion with Deon Snyman of the Foundation for Church-led Restitution on the Role of Religion in KwaZulu-Natal
With: Deon Snyman Berkley Center Profile
May 21, 2009
Background: As part of the Peacebuilding Practitioners Interview Series, Dr. Eric Patterson interviewed Dr. Deon Snyman of the Foundation for Church-Led Restitution. In this interview, he reflects on how religious actors impact his current work, as well as ongoing challenges to the participation of the South African churches in public life.
Tell me about yourself and how your faith has influenced your career?
After my training I took a job working in the northern rural communities of KwaZulu Natal. I have worked in these communities both pre- and post- the transition from the apartheid government. I worked with reconciliation and justice programs there. I also did work for the South African Council of Churches (SACC) in their socioeconomic programs. My current job is with the Foundation for Church-Led Restoration. We communicate through the church in order to try and provide greater levels of restorative justice to deepen levels of reconciliation in South Africa. I believe that the church community needs to further implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
What was the role of religious actors in the pre-transition period?
I started working in 1992 in KwaZulu Natal. This was a no-go area for the African National Congress (ANC). It was controlled by the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). It was a strange place to start working. I had enough time there to really start focusing on learning Zulu. It was very peaceful in that area at the time. There was also a 99 percent voter turnout for the IFP. It is largely pointless to talk of the church's role in the pre-transition period as this is already so well covered. While I was in KwaZulu Natal I was exposed to IFP abuses of power. They forced people to go to their rallies and to vote for them.
What was the role of religious actors during the pre-transition period?
During this time I moved to Durban and joined the SACC. This was far more linked with the ANC. In the rural areas of KwaZulu Natal however there was a very strong representation of the IFP. I lived, from 1992 to 1995, very close to the Zulu king. It was amazing how loyal his population was to him. However, when he changed his allegiance from IFP to the ANC such support evaporated, and he was disrespected by the community at large. This was an important lesson for South African society. One must be aware of how fast people can turn from supporting a center of power to changing such support. There was a difference between the young and old. The young were more critical of IFP and more likely to switch to voting for the ANC faster. The church was not very involved here. The SACC did not function well in KwaZulu Natal in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the rural areas. This council was seen as too linked with the ANC. The ecumenical movement had very little influence in KwaZulu Natal. It was re-established post-1994, and I worked with them then. They renamed themselves the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. This move was done specifically to get away from the image the SACC had of being linked with the ANC. Thus IFP support was very strong in the area. The secretary general of the IFP now is a Lutheran minister. He was also instrumental in setting up the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. Indeed, he was the first president of the regional council. It is amazing to see how politicized this all was. He was an IFP member of parliament, and he was also the president of the council. Since I left in 1997 the dynamics have changed a little. IFP is now less represented in the ecumenical movement of the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches.
KwaZulu Natal is the heartland of the IFP. Everything there is political. From 1997 to 2001, however, they lost much support.
Why was politics so involved in religious activities here?
The IFP was very strict. They had at least 90 percent support of the population. This was the one place they were strong, and they could not allow for any critical voices. The ANC were strong everywhere else, but this was the IFP’s homeland. It was not allowed for church leaders to support the ANC in this region. I was the only white person in the Zululand region involved in the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. I was thus asked to be part of the reconciliation portfolio. I was told to use the symbolism of my ministry to encourage reconciliation. There were very few white people there, and those that were there were very conservative. Later I became the deputy chair of the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. I believe I was elected because I was white. The new chair was less strongly aligned to the IFP than the old one had been. They never questioned my political affiliation, but again this was probably because I was white. Being too pro-ANC would not have been okay. I had the space to therefore put issues of justice on the table without being labeled as part of the ANC. I was asked to open the polling station with a prayer. I was even asked to count the ballots. Ministers were regarded as paradigms of the community. There was only one vote that was not for the IFP in the region, and that was mine.
Was there a high regard for religion in the region?
Certainly, yes. The whites were not suspected as ANC. Some ministers were more outspoken—but only from other churches. One’s life was in danger if one was a minister and too critical of the IFP.
What of your current work—what is the role of religious actors in this?
Religion has affected everything I do. Although it does so less today than it used to. I have a strong link to the justice principles of religion, and I still use these today. The reason I am in involved in the work I am is partially because of the strong justice exposure that religion gave me. I went to an IFP area as I have already said. It is the most traditional area in South Africa. This was not be choice; it was just where I happened to be assigned. I spent months just interacting with black people. So the first development of thinking was to establish normal relationships with people of color. And this proved very easy, and it showed how stupid apartheid was. We need to create an opportunity for whites and black to get to know each other, but the white church community was resistant. When I arrived in Durban I met far more intellectuals and more critical thinking. I was challenged a lot about reconciliation and the problems that were occurring with not taking it further. We need to do a lot more than just bring people together we need restorative justice. This is what my current work focuses on: the need for restorative justice if we are to get reconciliation. The church community and the TRC committed themselves to theses. But very little has actually happened. The patience of the poor people will not last forever.
You mentioned that there was a resistance on behalf of the white churches to meet with the blacks?
This is relatively universal. It is not just among the Afrikaners. The Dutch Reformed Church had its problems. I was a minister of the United Reformed Church. Lots of my experiences were with white Afrikaners. But in Durban I worked ecumenically—with Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists. The Dutch Reformed Church seems to be the least united. However, you ask the Methodists and the Lutherans whether they are united, and they say that they are not and that at least the Dutch Reformed Church is honest about its divisions, whereas their churches try to paper over the cracks. A big issue is that of land reform. What must be done? This is an issue I have dealt with white farmers in KwaZulu Natal. They need help with having a paradigm shift. They have little opportunity for non-racial paradigms and need to be taught. The church is doing nothing.
Our ministers are the only people in South Africa to only work with whites. They still, even in the new era, often have totally white congregations. There is a need for black and white ministers to work together. This is particularly true on the hot issue of land reform. The white community never bought into the ecumenical movement. If any white people attend the SACC regional council in KwaZulu Natal they will be elected to the board. They are desperate for people to work together like this, and there are no mechanisms present for this. The only time the work together is in a fraternal manner, when the issues are very spiritual. They need a social justice agenda. It is very bad in KwaZulu Natal. Even in the Western Cape/Western Province Council of Churches there are very few white people. So the colored dominate the ecumenical movement. This has caused the blacks to start pulling out. However, recently a black minister was voted in the director spot in the organization, and even this one move has caused a lot of progress.
Is the transition in South Africa over?
No. I believe the TRC process was perhaps too fast. For example, the failure on the issue of reparations. Justice has not been done. We need a second TRC process. We could now have this to deepen the issues.
What do you think the overall impact of religious communities was on the consolidation of democracy?
White people have not embraced it enough. They have not shown that they are sorry or taken full responsibility. The church community should do this. It should not be the black church vs. the white church. This is not a healthy relationship. Whites are generally against a continuation of the TRC process, and blacks are probably for it. The whites try to close the past as they do not want to keep dealing with it. Perhaps the church is not as relevant as an institution to really contribute to the healing process because it has separate white and black legs.
It is often said that the churches have "one quiet" after the transition. What do you think of this charge?
Tutu admitted at an SACC conference that this is true. The critical solidarity ideology has played a role in this. Now we have freedom, Tutu said, let the ministers go back to the pulpit. The ecumenical people that were involved in the struggle do not know what their relationship should be with the government. Lots of them are not even in government. The mistake that was made was the same the Dutch Reformed Church made during apartheid. The churches now only criticize the government in the office of the president and not in public. This was the same as the Dutch Reformed under apartheid. They failed to be open with any of their critiques. The ecumenical people post-1994 have made the same mistake. There is more solidarity of the church with the government than critical engagement. The new president of the SACC is trying to change this now. Under his leadership the SACC has become more vocal over issues such as: Zimbabwe, poverty, refugees, and land reform. It is unfair to be too critical of the churches' quiet. They have to be given time to establish a new vision within the new democratic South Africa. They have made mistakes, but they need to be given time. But in the past election Zuma identified more with the non-traditional churches, as the traditional ones were beginning to take a more critical stance.
Finally, what do you see as the priority for the country in the future, and what role do religious communities have in this?
We must deal with the past. It is early, but this has not been done. The whites are still shell-shocked post-1994. We must address our history more openly if healing is to occur. We must take responsibility for the injustices of the past. Restorative justice is the key to healing. We must also analyze the possible sources and amounts of reconciliation. What is needed is for the white community to realize that. Post-1994 lots of things have gone wrong, and unfortunately the white community can point to these and deny responsibility. We need a paradigm shift.
After my training I took a job working in the northern rural communities of KwaZulu Natal. I have worked in these communities both pre- and post- the transition from the apartheid government. I worked with reconciliation and justice programs there. I also did work for the South African Council of Churches (SACC) in their socioeconomic programs. My current job is with the Foundation for Church-Led Restoration. We communicate through the church in order to try and provide greater levels of restorative justice to deepen levels of reconciliation in South Africa. I believe that the church community needs to further implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
What was the role of religious actors in the pre-transition period?
I started working in 1992 in KwaZulu Natal. This was a no-go area for the African National Congress (ANC). It was controlled by the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). It was a strange place to start working. I had enough time there to really start focusing on learning Zulu. It was very peaceful in that area at the time. There was also a 99 percent voter turnout for the IFP. It is largely pointless to talk of the church's role in the pre-transition period as this is already so well covered. While I was in KwaZulu Natal I was exposed to IFP abuses of power. They forced people to go to their rallies and to vote for them.
What was the role of religious actors during the pre-transition period?
During this time I moved to Durban and joined the SACC. This was far more linked with the ANC. In the rural areas of KwaZulu Natal however there was a very strong representation of the IFP. I lived, from 1992 to 1995, very close to the Zulu king. It was amazing how loyal his population was to him. However, when he changed his allegiance from IFP to the ANC such support evaporated, and he was disrespected by the community at large. This was an important lesson for South African society. One must be aware of how fast people can turn from supporting a center of power to changing such support. There was a difference between the young and old. The young were more critical of IFP and more likely to switch to voting for the ANC faster. The church was not very involved here. The SACC did not function well in KwaZulu Natal in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the rural areas. This council was seen as too linked with the ANC. The ecumenical movement had very little influence in KwaZulu Natal. It was re-established post-1994, and I worked with them then. They renamed themselves the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. This move was done specifically to get away from the image the SACC had of being linked with the ANC. Thus IFP support was very strong in the area. The secretary general of the IFP now is a Lutheran minister. He was also instrumental in setting up the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. Indeed, he was the first president of the regional council. It is amazing to see how politicized this all was. He was an IFP member of parliament, and he was also the president of the council. Since I left in 1997 the dynamics have changed a little. IFP is now less represented in the ecumenical movement of the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches.
KwaZulu Natal is the heartland of the IFP. Everything there is political. From 1997 to 2001, however, they lost much support.
Why was politics so involved in religious activities here?
The IFP was very strict. They had at least 90 percent support of the population. This was the one place they were strong, and they could not allow for any critical voices. The ANC were strong everywhere else, but this was the IFP’s homeland. It was not allowed for church leaders to support the ANC in this region. I was the only white person in the Zululand region involved in the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. I was thus asked to be part of the reconciliation portfolio. I was told to use the symbolism of my ministry to encourage reconciliation. There were very few white people there, and those that were there were very conservative. Later I became the deputy chair of the KwaZulu Natal Christian Council of Churches. I believe I was elected because I was white. The new chair was less strongly aligned to the IFP than the old one had been. They never questioned my political affiliation, but again this was probably because I was white. Being too pro-ANC would not have been okay. I had the space to therefore put issues of justice on the table without being labeled as part of the ANC. I was asked to open the polling station with a prayer. I was even asked to count the ballots. Ministers were regarded as paradigms of the community. There was only one vote that was not for the IFP in the region, and that was mine.
Was there a high regard for religion in the region?
Certainly, yes. The whites were not suspected as ANC. Some ministers were more outspoken—but only from other churches. One’s life was in danger if one was a minister and too critical of the IFP.
What of your current work—what is the role of religious actors in this?
Religion has affected everything I do. Although it does so less today than it used to. I have a strong link to the justice principles of religion, and I still use these today. The reason I am in involved in the work I am is partially because of the strong justice exposure that religion gave me. I went to an IFP area as I have already said. It is the most traditional area in South Africa. This was not be choice; it was just where I happened to be assigned. I spent months just interacting with black people. So the first development of thinking was to establish normal relationships with people of color. And this proved very easy, and it showed how stupid apartheid was. We need to create an opportunity for whites and black to get to know each other, but the white church community was resistant. When I arrived in Durban I met far more intellectuals and more critical thinking. I was challenged a lot about reconciliation and the problems that were occurring with not taking it further. We need to do a lot more than just bring people together we need restorative justice. This is what my current work focuses on: the need for restorative justice if we are to get reconciliation. The church community and the TRC committed themselves to theses. But very little has actually happened. The patience of the poor people will not last forever.
You mentioned that there was a resistance on behalf of the white churches to meet with the blacks?
This is relatively universal. It is not just among the Afrikaners. The Dutch Reformed Church had its problems. I was a minister of the United Reformed Church. Lots of my experiences were with white Afrikaners. But in Durban I worked ecumenically—with Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists. The Dutch Reformed Church seems to be the least united. However, you ask the Methodists and the Lutherans whether they are united, and they say that they are not and that at least the Dutch Reformed Church is honest about its divisions, whereas their churches try to paper over the cracks. A big issue is that of land reform. What must be done? This is an issue I have dealt with white farmers in KwaZulu Natal. They need help with having a paradigm shift. They have little opportunity for non-racial paradigms and need to be taught. The church is doing nothing.
Our ministers are the only people in South Africa to only work with whites. They still, even in the new era, often have totally white congregations. There is a need for black and white ministers to work together. This is particularly true on the hot issue of land reform. The white community never bought into the ecumenical movement. If any white people attend the SACC regional council in KwaZulu Natal they will be elected to the board. They are desperate for people to work together like this, and there are no mechanisms present for this. The only time the work together is in a fraternal manner, when the issues are very spiritual. They need a social justice agenda. It is very bad in KwaZulu Natal. Even in the Western Cape/Western Province Council of Churches there are very few white people. So the colored dominate the ecumenical movement. This has caused the blacks to start pulling out. However, recently a black minister was voted in the director spot in the organization, and even this one move has caused a lot of progress.
Is the transition in South Africa over?
No. I believe the TRC process was perhaps too fast. For example, the failure on the issue of reparations. Justice has not been done. We need a second TRC process. We could now have this to deepen the issues.
What do you think the overall impact of religious communities was on the consolidation of democracy?
White people have not embraced it enough. They have not shown that they are sorry or taken full responsibility. The church community should do this. It should not be the black church vs. the white church. This is not a healthy relationship. Whites are generally against a continuation of the TRC process, and blacks are probably for it. The whites try to close the past as they do not want to keep dealing with it. Perhaps the church is not as relevant as an institution to really contribute to the healing process because it has separate white and black legs.
It is often said that the churches have "one quiet" after the transition. What do you think of this charge?
Tutu admitted at an SACC conference that this is true. The critical solidarity ideology has played a role in this. Now we have freedom, Tutu said, let the ministers go back to the pulpit. The ecumenical people that were involved in the struggle do not know what their relationship should be with the government. Lots of them are not even in government. The mistake that was made was the same the Dutch Reformed Church made during apartheid. The churches now only criticize the government in the office of the president and not in public. This was the same as the Dutch Reformed under apartheid. They failed to be open with any of their critiques. The ecumenical people post-1994 have made the same mistake. There is more solidarity of the church with the government than critical engagement. The new president of the SACC is trying to change this now. Under his leadership the SACC has become more vocal over issues such as: Zimbabwe, poverty, refugees, and land reform. It is unfair to be too critical of the churches' quiet. They have to be given time to establish a new vision within the new democratic South Africa. They have made mistakes, but they need to be given time. But in the past election Zuma identified more with the non-traditional churches, as the traditional ones were beginning to take a more critical stance.
Finally, what do you see as the priority for the country in the future, and what role do religious communities have in this?
We must deal with the past. It is early, but this has not been done. The whites are still shell-shocked post-1994. We must address our history more openly if healing is to occur. We must take responsibility for the injustices of the past. Restorative justice is the key to healing. We must also analyze the possible sources and amounts of reconciliation. What is needed is for the white community to realize that. Post-1994 lots of things have gone wrong, and unfortunately the white community can point to these and deny responsibility. We need a paradigm shift.
Opens in a new window