Background: As part of the Peacebuilding Practitioners Interview Series, Dr. Eric Patterson interviewed Dr. Lionel Louw, who has extensive professional experience as a social worker and religious minister. In this interview, Louw shares his opinion on what he sees as the role for religious organizations in South Africa. He also reflects on the impact of religious communities on the consolidation of democracy.
What was the role of the church during the struggle against apartheid?
It was much more through ecumenical movements as the primary vehicle for pushing for change. The ecumenical structures challenge member churches. There was a steady progression on intervention in the struggle. Indeed the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared that apartheid was a heresy. Theologically people from religious organizations were challenging it. Indeed, this theology then identified with the liberation ideology motif and became a central force in the opposition to apartheid. Religious movements were very active in marches and mobilizing ordinary people in protest. There was also much interfaith work which was very important. A summary of religious actors work in the struggle is: their interfaith work, the church as part of a broader civil society movement (under a United Democratic Front [UDF] umbrella structure), and their ecumenical work. Moreover, global figures such as [Desmond] Tutu made moral appeals to the conscience of the international community. But, as you said, the work of religious actors in the struggle against apartheid and in the transition is well documented already.
Do you feel like the transition in South Africa is over?
The transition period is very much ongoing, but it now manifests itself in different sectors of society. The political sphere of society was the most visible and in some ways that is over. But the socioeconomic sector is very much ongoing. This sector is the heart of the ongoing work. The question remains as to how one ensures the political transition is manifested in equivalent terms in the socioeconomic arena: service delivery, education etc This arena is the hard stuff of the transition.
What is the impact of the religious communities on the consolidation of peace/democracy?
Individual religious leaders continue to play an important role, e.g. Tutu. However, many of the leaders have gone into politics. The religious community has had a continued influence, however, through their discourse and morality. For example, if one considers the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR). IJR is not a religious organization, but it has been influenced by the values that have been espoused by the religious community. These values have been adopted and taken on. They have been incorporated into the whats and hows of what is going on. These values particularly influenced the first five years after the transition when Mandela was in power. However, there is a negative side. The religious community has, since the transition, become very inwardly focused. They have shifted their focus to pastoral issues for example and on their own institutional survival. They now concentrate less on their prophetic role. There are many reasons for this. However, the primary one is by virtue of the fact that many of their compatriots from the struggle went into government. This not only meant that the religious community was denied many of its leaders, but there was also a tacit assumption among the community that because their comrades were now in power, their aspirations from the struggle would automatically be realized, and they no longer needed to focus on these issues. The church more or less took a back seat.
So the aspirations of the struggle have not been met? And religious communities have not continued to play such a significant role?
There were many expectations on what a people’s government would deliver. For example, they were not supposed to allow for these continued high levels of poverty. Our government should deliver it. It is OUR government now, and OUR people are in it, so all our hopes should be met. Also, we all thought that they would do it. However, our comrades in the government found institutional government hard. It was harder than had been envisioned for them to provide the amenities that we all wanted. It was very hard to fill our/their dreams. This was also coupled with the fact that we have basically the same civil service as when we were under the apartheid government. In our struggle language civil service itself became the site of struggle. The civil service was an important instrument for accommodating white Afrikaner aspirations. Only the top levels of leadership changed with the shift from apartheid. This change did not filter down. So, it was hard for the people who were in government. There were too high expectations from the struggle and it could not happen. We simplified it too much—what they had to do.
During the first five Mandela years—Mandela established the National Religious Leaders Forum (NRLF). This was done at the request of Mandela. His purpose for them was to advise him and his government. It wasn’t strictly determined what they should do, but this is what he meant for them to do. They operated on a twice yearly basis when they met with the president. This was part of the moral regeneration movement—what Mandela called the "RDP of the soul." A lot of reconciliation and moral language was used. Institutional structures were created. [Thabo] Mbeki continued with this. Religious actors, however, although they still had a role in critical engagement, had lost their prophetic voice by this time. The assumed that the leaders, who had come from their midst, would do this for them. So they turned inwardly. The struggle was over. Indeed, I think it was in 1990—when Mandela was released from jail—Tutu said now we can return to our parishes. Thus, an icon of the struggled made a statement suggesting that he believed he was passing the torch onto the secular movements, and religious actors could go back to more traditionally religious pastimes.
Was this avoidable?
It was a natural thing that occurred. We had a naïve, romantic view. We hoped it was all over. We assumed that the government could do everything.
I want to talk about the NRLF. I attended some of their meetings. It was an interfaith body which had a lot of potential. However, it had no agenda of its own. It had no driving force. They were enamored with meeting the president and ministers and failed to come with their own voice and with their own agenda. For example, when Mbeki took power, he set aside two days to meet with the NRLF and brought many high level ministers with him. However, those on the forum came with no agenda. It became a rambling event. He was there to take notes and listen to them, but they had no agenda. He engaged them and they did not ask for anything. The religious fraternity of the churches has not been sufficiently organized about a sense of mission. There is no coherent sense of mission for the contemporary church. The religious community is searching for what its mission should be in a constitutional democracy in South Africa. They have still not found this mission.
What is the relationship between religious actors and the state?
There is no antagonism or tension. There is an ongoing respect on the part of the government for the religious communities. This was again affirmed in the events of the recent election. They are recognized as important institutions. There is a healthy respect.
What should the religious community's role be?
There are a lot of possibilities. If they can get a sense of mission and purpose. For example the provincial government under the ANC from June 2004 to July 2008 was headed by Ibrahim Moosa. He was a former office bearer in the UDF and was very active among the Muslim community. He came out of a background of interfaith work during the struggle. He was the premier of that province for that period. I was his chief of staff. We created a platform for provincial religious forum. We even established it. However, the religious community cannot sustain it. It exists, but it is not sustained. It was effectively stillborn, because the religious community has no mission. They do not know what they want. They do not put the necessary energy and leadership into it to become an actor on a provincial stage.
What about concerning issues such as HIV/AIDS or poverty issues?
The problem is we are beyond statements. We need a program of action around the pertinent issues impacting South Africa. Poverty is number one, and HIV/AIDS is probably two. The church has done some work with HIV/AIDS but in a more caring role and a missionary kind of role, not policy prescription. I am being harsh, but it is an environment that requires programs of action. We need more that statements. This is what people expect. For example, look at the current protests in the communities around service delivery.
So what is the possibility for the future?
They need to establish meaningful action programs. These must be developed through partnership. Religious communities and government on all levels. So in sum the religious community has made its contribution. And it can now and in the future. But they need a better sense of their public role.
It was much more through ecumenical movements as the primary vehicle for pushing for change. The ecumenical structures challenge member churches. There was a steady progression on intervention in the struggle. Indeed the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared that apartheid was a heresy. Theologically people from religious organizations were challenging it. Indeed, this theology then identified with the liberation ideology motif and became a central force in the opposition to apartheid. Religious movements were very active in marches and mobilizing ordinary people in protest. There was also much interfaith work which was very important. A summary of religious actors work in the struggle is: their interfaith work, the church as part of a broader civil society movement (under a United Democratic Front [UDF] umbrella structure), and their ecumenical work. Moreover, global figures such as [Desmond] Tutu made moral appeals to the conscience of the international community. But, as you said, the work of religious actors in the struggle against apartheid and in the transition is well documented already.
Do you feel like the transition in South Africa is over?
The transition period is very much ongoing, but it now manifests itself in different sectors of society. The political sphere of society was the most visible and in some ways that is over. But the socioeconomic sector is very much ongoing. This sector is the heart of the ongoing work. The question remains as to how one ensures the political transition is manifested in equivalent terms in the socioeconomic arena: service delivery, education etc This arena is the hard stuff of the transition.
What is the impact of the religious communities on the consolidation of peace/democracy?
Individual religious leaders continue to play an important role, e.g. Tutu. However, many of the leaders have gone into politics. The religious community has had a continued influence, however, through their discourse and morality. For example, if one considers the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR). IJR is not a religious organization, but it has been influenced by the values that have been espoused by the religious community. These values have been adopted and taken on. They have been incorporated into the whats and hows of what is going on. These values particularly influenced the first five years after the transition when Mandela was in power. However, there is a negative side. The religious community has, since the transition, become very inwardly focused. They have shifted their focus to pastoral issues for example and on their own institutional survival. They now concentrate less on their prophetic role. There are many reasons for this. However, the primary one is by virtue of the fact that many of their compatriots from the struggle went into government. This not only meant that the religious community was denied many of its leaders, but there was also a tacit assumption among the community that because their comrades were now in power, their aspirations from the struggle would automatically be realized, and they no longer needed to focus on these issues. The church more or less took a back seat.
So the aspirations of the struggle have not been met? And religious communities have not continued to play such a significant role?
There were many expectations on what a people’s government would deliver. For example, they were not supposed to allow for these continued high levels of poverty. Our government should deliver it. It is OUR government now, and OUR people are in it, so all our hopes should be met. Also, we all thought that they would do it. However, our comrades in the government found institutional government hard. It was harder than had been envisioned for them to provide the amenities that we all wanted. It was very hard to fill our/their dreams. This was also coupled with the fact that we have basically the same civil service as when we were under the apartheid government. In our struggle language civil service itself became the site of struggle. The civil service was an important instrument for accommodating white Afrikaner aspirations. Only the top levels of leadership changed with the shift from apartheid. This change did not filter down. So, it was hard for the people who were in government. There were too high expectations from the struggle and it could not happen. We simplified it too much—what they had to do.
During the first five Mandela years—Mandela established the National Religious Leaders Forum (NRLF). This was done at the request of Mandela. His purpose for them was to advise him and his government. It wasn’t strictly determined what they should do, but this is what he meant for them to do. They operated on a twice yearly basis when they met with the president. This was part of the moral regeneration movement—what Mandela called the "RDP of the soul." A lot of reconciliation and moral language was used. Institutional structures were created. [Thabo] Mbeki continued with this. Religious actors, however, although they still had a role in critical engagement, had lost their prophetic voice by this time. The assumed that the leaders, who had come from their midst, would do this for them. So they turned inwardly. The struggle was over. Indeed, I think it was in 1990—when Mandela was released from jail—Tutu said now we can return to our parishes. Thus, an icon of the struggled made a statement suggesting that he believed he was passing the torch onto the secular movements, and religious actors could go back to more traditionally religious pastimes.
Was this avoidable?
It was a natural thing that occurred. We had a naïve, romantic view. We hoped it was all over. We assumed that the government could do everything.
I want to talk about the NRLF. I attended some of their meetings. It was an interfaith body which had a lot of potential. However, it had no agenda of its own. It had no driving force. They were enamored with meeting the president and ministers and failed to come with their own voice and with their own agenda. For example, when Mbeki took power, he set aside two days to meet with the NRLF and brought many high level ministers with him. However, those on the forum came with no agenda. It became a rambling event. He was there to take notes and listen to them, but they had no agenda. He engaged them and they did not ask for anything. The religious fraternity of the churches has not been sufficiently organized about a sense of mission. There is no coherent sense of mission for the contemporary church. The religious community is searching for what its mission should be in a constitutional democracy in South Africa. They have still not found this mission.
What is the relationship between religious actors and the state?
There is no antagonism or tension. There is an ongoing respect on the part of the government for the religious communities. This was again affirmed in the events of the recent election. They are recognized as important institutions. There is a healthy respect.
What should the religious community's role be?
There are a lot of possibilities. If they can get a sense of mission and purpose. For example the provincial government under the ANC from June 2004 to July 2008 was headed by Ibrahim Moosa. He was a former office bearer in the UDF and was very active among the Muslim community. He came out of a background of interfaith work during the struggle. He was the premier of that province for that period. I was his chief of staff. We created a platform for provincial religious forum. We even established it. However, the religious community cannot sustain it. It exists, but it is not sustained. It was effectively stillborn, because the religious community has no mission. They do not know what they want. They do not put the necessary energy and leadership into it to become an actor on a provincial stage.
What about concerning issues such as HIV/AIDS or poverty issues?
The problem is we are beyond statements. We need a program of action around the pertinent issues impacting South Africa. Poverty is number one, and HIV/AIDS is probably two. The church has done some work with HIV/AIDS but in a more caring role and a missionary kind of role, not policy prescription. I am being harsh, but it is an environment that requires programs of action. We need more that statements. This is what people expect. For example, look at the current protests in the communities around service delivery.
So what is the possibility for the future?
They need to establish meaningful action programs. These must be developed through partnership. Religious communities and government on all levels. So in sum the religious community has made its contribution. And it can now and in the future. But they need a better sense of their public role.
Opens in a new window