Politics and Religion 1: The rise of the separation of church and state

Since the days of Martin Luther, the Reformation and nearly 200 years before the French Revolution was there the call for a clear separation between church and state; an almost integral part to modern democracy, some would argue. While one can acknowledge that it took those countries who were predominantly Catholic nearly 200 years for this church-state culture to set in, countries in the north of Europe, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, where the Reformation flourished, adopted this almost immediately. As a consequence, these northern European countries remain some of the most secularised countries in the world today.

One could argue that even to this present day former Catholic European countries, such as Spain, France and Italy, find themselves struggling with this clear separation between church and state. For example, France has decided that it is the philosophy of liberté, égalité, fraternité, born from the Enlightenment, which citizens of France have to profess in order to be French; not culture, language or religion.

In banning the public wearing of niqab, the French authorities ordered French Muslim women to “liberate” themselves from garments, such as niqab, and thus ensure “equality” with all other (non-Muslim French) women. That some of these Muslim women freely chose to wear niqab and that through this banning their “liberty” was being limited was of no consequence to French authorities.

In Italy, the 2011 case Lautsi vs Italy before the European Court of Human Rights somewhat described the entire continent’s rollercoaster experience with religion and secularism, state and church. Crucifixes were being displayed in public (state) schools and the Lautsi’s took umbrage because they wanted their children to be (educated) free from religion. They therefore demanded that the school remove the crucifixes, the school refused and the matter went to court. The Italian Court found in favour of the school arguing that the crucifix was a cultural rather than religious symbol. In other words, an Italian court decided that pivotal to Italian culture, no matter what the background or region, was the symbol of the crucifix.

The Lautsi’s then proceeded to the European Court of Human Rights arguing an infringement on the rights to freedom of thought and education. This Court agreed with them but on appeal the Italian state won again given that the Court argued that member countries (of the European Union) had a differing “margin of appreciation”. In other words, a crucifix meant more (culturally) to an Italian than it did, say, to a Swede or German and even a French, given the laïcité principle.

The two cases illustrate the type of debate that has been on-going in Europe for a few years, maybe even since the founding of the EU in the early 1950’s; a question not of the separation between church and state but rather church (religion) and politics, church (religion) and culture.

Is it possible to be European and not realise the fundamentally Christian roots that Europe enjoys, given that it was once called “Christendom”? Just like Greece is a fundamental part of Europe? In fact some would even argue that values such as liberté, égalité, fraternité and even democracy itself are fundamentally Christian concepts albeit products of the Reformation. Who would forget the case of Turkey and their wish to enter the EU? Apparently they were just not “European” (read: Christian) enough.

Secularism has its roots in the Reformation and subsequently the Enlightenment but secularists in Europe today struggle to juggle the Christian roots that Europe enjoys, the influx of Islam and the demands to separate church (religion) from state. For sure, given both cases cited and how they were concluded one questions whether there is simply a demand to ensure that Europe keeps Islam in check while maintaining its Christian roots.

The scenario teaches that there would seem to be a clear difference between the separation of church-state relations and church-politics relations. The former seems to be the easier while the latter poses as a struggle not only in Europe, “exporter of democracy”, but also in the United States and other democratic countries, including South Africa. Society-state issues are at play and fundamentally how society has the ability to shape the state and, almost obviously, vice-versa.

Given the Arab spring and the call for liberté, égalité, fraternité in these countries as well as the subsequent rise of Islamic (“fundamentalist”) regimes through democratic means, e.g. Egypt, Gaza, Pakistan, it would be interesting to see how democracy twins with the local religious and political culture.  

One can easily legislate separation of church and state but in dealing with political culture, which is often influenced by religion and which one cannot control, it becomes a bit more complicated.

Our Iron Lady

Earlier this year, I read a biography of David Cameron [DC], the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative Party. Believing in the maxim: "Know Thy Enemy!", my interest in DC comes at a time when Tories are governing the country through a necessary coalition with the Liberal-Democrats, under Nick Clegg, after being in opposition for 13 years; opposition in three consecutive Labour government terms. The coalition should prove a bit more interesting in the coming months given the challenges the UK has with Europe and Europe always affects the UK, whether Britons want to believe this or not.

Yet what really interests me is the fact that DC was able to scrape through the 2010 General Election after his party took three defeats at the General polls (1997;2001;2005). The ANC in the Western Cape can learn a lesson or two not only from the Conservatives post 1997 but even from the Labour Party. Labour was in opposition for 18 years before they came into power in 1997, under Tony Blair.

DC comes from a rather wealthy background, his wife from an even wealthier one and this is something that haunts him. He is said to be aloof, arrogant and out of touch with those whom his cuts really affect. His father was a financier, stock broker-cum-banker and it is this privileged background that gave DC both a headache on his way to claim the Tory leadership in 2005 but also crawling towards victory of the premiership in 2010. 

Even worse was his association with Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism. If DC, who wears the pants in the Cameron-Clegg marriage, is known for his cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts to public spending then it is vintage Margaret Thatcher. In fact, he tried and is trying to go even further and privatise not only public services but civil society itself; quintessential Thatcherism.

But this then sparks an interest for Maggie herself. If Maggie is the one DC goes gagga for, then surely it is useful to try and understand the Iron Lady. She got this title from the Soviets while still in opposition, who meant it as an insult, but who the mother of modern day political spin was able to keep as a compliment, at home. DC was a protégé of Maggie but not exactly because they hardly worked together, as say Oliver Tambo and Thabo Mbeki did. To understand how Mbeki thinks, one had to look into Tambo’s direction. Cameron never admitted to be a Thatcher fan but certainly there were signs of it during his Oxford days.

Cut a long story short, Maggie was able to defeat Labour in a number of successive general elections (1979;1983;1987). Not only did she earn her nickname by the way she handled domestic troubles: the riots of the early ‘80’s, how she related to the trade unions, how she dealt with Northern Ireland, the international community and everything else but also the way she dealt severe blows to Labour in elections.

The intrigue though comes with her downfall. The Iron Lady fell after her party imploded. Labour, the unions, terrorists/freedom fighters in Northern Ireland and the Soviets were all unable to do what her own party did: unseat her. It was her own party that slammed the door on her. Differences with her party emerged not only on policy but also with her attitude. Her deep differences, for example, on Europe coupled with her self-confidence, bordering on arrogance, caused the rebellion within the Tories, Labour needed.

John Major won the next election riding on Thatcher’s wave and by shining in Rupert Murdoch’s light. But yes, the end of Thatcher meant the end of the Tories and they continue to struggle to this day, hence their struggle to victory in 2010.

We have our own Maggie Thatcher. She runs the Western Cape and, like Thatcher, is the lonely woman, by design, in a rather male world. Her policies, and that of her party, are not far from Thatcher’s: individual opportunism, dislike of trade unions, favouring capital, entrench past privileges, divide and rule, and best of all, spin!

People hated Thatcherism but loved the woman. She had charm, she had balls and she was nice – but that’s where it stopped and people didn’t look farther than these. But then her colleagues got fed up with her, her policies, her attitude and her stink – and they got rid of her.

No doubt, our Iron Lady will probably go the same way. The majority of people who vote for her don’t know the policies she promotes and the privilege she defends but this is for sure: she is their darling. On twitter, on Facebook, on botox, our Iron Lady in the Western Cape, is just “with-it” and people do go gagga for her. She is witty, she is bright (pun intended) and she has style.

The leader of the Official Opposition in the Western Cape, who is also a woman, can learn a thing or two from this Iron Lady it’s been said before. Point being: as long as she is in the running things, it would seem that the opposition in the Province will remain in their side of the House. Until, wait for it, her party implodes, has had enough of her arrogance (which she has a klomp of) and gets rid of her. Be assured, the DA is as divided as the Tories were in the ‘80’s; it’s deep down.

The WC Iron Lady turned 60 this year by 2014 she’ll be 63 and by 2019, 68. The Opposition in the WC stands a chance therefore for 2019 but the ground work starts now. In the meantime, they should prod and target the whims of the Iron Lady, guys she has as henchmen. Of course, building the organisation as well will be important as Blair did before 1997 and certainly which Cameron is struggling to do.

P.S. My calling our home grown Iron Lady by that title is as complex as it was in Maggie’s day: a blue compliment mixed with red insult.

Mbeki: If we are divided, what divides us?...Delegates: You!

A week is a long time in politics. Two were spent in Cape Town and you can just imagine all the things that happened. A Turkish plane got shot down by the Syrians, the elections in Greece and the installation of the (former) Muslim Brotherhood veteran Mohammad Morsi as Egypt’s president, textbooks in Limpopo and the ANC’s policy conference. 

What was constant during these two weeks though was (reading) Frank Chikane’s, Eight Days in September: The Removal of Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki had celebrated his 70^th Birthday, about three weeks ago, and this blog just could not let the occasion go by without commenting on this man.

When the book was first launched in South Africa and Chikane did all his speeches and tours, quite a number of fingers went to keyboards about it. True to faction, those “for” Mbeki, the Mbekites of old, praised Chikane for his bravery and for telling “their” truth. Those against Mbeki, in 2005-2008, were a bit more cautious as they were either regretful about what they had done to the man (or is it regretful who they replaced him with?) or ready to acknowledge that history could repeat itself. One supposes that’s the beating of “history repeating itself”; you don’t know until it’s history.

Mbeki was a brilliant man as he was his own worst enemy. He questioned, as any intellectual does, but often this blinded him from the orthopraxy of things: rolling out ARV’s, redesigning and restructuring the economy, addressing patronage in the party and public sector, among other things. But as for setting the African agenda, building on the work of Nelson Mandela, there was no doubt that Thabo was the man and remains the man to have served the country and the continent at that critical juncture. Chikane stresses (not) revealing classified information, the role of the intelligence and one wonders whether he is indirectly suggesting that (Western) foreign powers had anything to do with the Eight Days.  

Mbekites, if such still exist, would often remind us that we should never compare Mbeki to Mandela. Mbeki, they would argue, was a leader with intellect and experience in his own right. This is a good lesson when trying to understand any leader: judge them for how they react to their particular circumstances. Would Gandhi have succeeded in fighting for Indian rights in the UK? Or even SA? Maybe his stint in SA became well known only after thriving in India. Will Gandhi be successful in India today? Was Gandhi successful at all?

However getting back to the book, which is clearly written by a Mbekite even though Chikane repeats, often enough to make one nauseous, that he is not writing in support of Mbeki, against the ANC of Polokwane or the Zuma administration, it is clear that the author is crying over spilt milk.

He makes it clear that his version of events, even though acting as a public servant where one had to be apolitical, as he stresses, but forgets to add that it is a political appointment, is to paint Mbeki as a victim of the ANC, at least post the “Polokwane-project”. Chikane is anything but un-biased and we must remember that 2012 is an election year in the ANC.

Be that as it may, some questions arise. Chikane certainly had access to information which he could have shed light on but not once did he even allude to them. Information that could certainly help us, as ordinary South Africans, understand what caused those Eights Days. Questions like:

• at the National Executive Committee meeting of the ANC on 19 September 2008 at Esselen Park, where according to Chikane the ‘ngoku’ (now) group won and the decision was made to recall Mbeki immediately, why was Thabo Mbeki not present? As a former president of the ANC, he has the right to attend any meetings of the ANC, ex-officio. Though this rule is hard to find in the ANC’s Constitution, it was used by Nelson Mandela in March 2002, where, in the presence of Mbeki, Mandela was humiliated and the president of the ANC, at the time, did nothing to defend Mandela.

• what made Mbeki want to run for a third term, as president of the ANC? While Chikane defends the book as being an account of those Eight Days, he does venture into pre-Polokwane days and maybe in the second book (which he has promised but which I doubt will materialise) he might explain Mbeki’s desire to remain in office. Whilst Chikane is at pains to portray Mbeki as a man who wanted to set a good example of an African leader, he does not come near to mentioning why Mbeki wanted a third term. Surely there were cadres, other than Mbeki himself, who were capable of running against Jacob Zuma?

• based on the later Supreme Court of Appeal judgement, Chikane argues that it was unfair to recall Mbeki based on the Nicholson judgement. Yet why did Mbeki choose to recall Zuma, his deputy, based on the Squires judgement, in the Shaik case? A judgement that was yet to be tested in the SCA.

• Mbeki lost Polokwane to Zuma, 60-40. Yet Chikane fails to explain why, in his opinion, Mbeki had become so unpopular. But then again, he believes that Polokwane and the Recall was simply the work of a cabal. That Mbeki could have been the architect of ill-discipline that developed in the ANC, as witnessed in the NEC meeting of March 2002, where Mandela was called a liar, is just not possible for Chikane.

It is important to read the book, not because one is pro- or anti-Mbeki rather, because it does give insight into what happened in those Eight Days albeit a recount that was in favour of Mbeki. It fails to tackle the “real” issues and seems to have as its aim making a martyr out of Mbeki, a PR exercise as it were. Words such as “coup” and “crucifixion” lend itself to this interpretation.

Mbeki was one of South Africa’s brightest thinkers, especially within the political realm. However, he had his time and, as with Mandela, we must move on.