There is an age-old wisdom in politics, especially in democracies such as South-Africa, that freedom is seldom taken away in one dramatic swoop or with one sudden blow – it is chipped away quietly, procedurally, behind closed doors, with the stroke of a pen and behind the mask of good intentions.
South Africans have become all too familiar with this pattern, and it is repeating itself once again in one of the most intimate and personal spheres of human life: what we believe, how we worship, and how religious communities organise and govern themselves. Once again the government cryptically frames this as a harmless peer review and mere self-regulation when in fact what it proposes opens the door to government inserting itself into the inner sanctum of people’s religious life.
The Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights (CLR) Commission’s decision to establish a Section 22 ad hoc committee to draft a code of conduct and potential regulatory framework for religious organisations may sound harmless – even bureaucratically dull. The language however is very familiar: “peer review,” “voluntary participation,” “professionalisation.” But anyone who has watched how power is wielded knows that the first step is always the most subtle. The state rarely arrives banging on the church door with brute force demanding control; it arrives carrying clipboards and overseeing the enforcement of regulations.
This is why Free SA has launched a national campaign, “Your Faith. Your Conscience. Not for the State to Control.”And we are encouraging all South-Africans, especially religious communities and civil society organisations who have concerns to make their voices heard at the public consultation process and to give input on our website which will form part of a formal submission to the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs on 15 December.
Reveals the real intention
The CRL Commission insists that the framework is merely a mechanism to promote accountability among religious bodies and institutions. Yet even this framing reveals the real intention. Accountability to whom? Since when does the state – or a state-funded commission – get to decide how faith communities hold themselves accountable? Especially since the state cannot keep members of its own executive accountable and in check.
A regulatory structure, even one wrapped in the gentle veneer of a “peer review” and “self regulation” is still nevertheless a framework which can be enforced. And once a structure has been built and established, these structures invite occupation and enforcement whether sought or unsought. Today, it may be advisory. Tomorrow, it could be mandatory. And once the state has wrestled itself into people’s inner sanctuary, history shows it seldom removes it.
Government should not be in the business of monitoring and overseeing what South-Africans believe and how they exercise their faith especially in a constitutional democracy like South-Africa.
Sections 15 and 31 of South Africa’s Constitution are not ambiguous and are not mere guiding principles. They do not hint at religious freedom, they guarantee it, robustly and explicitly. Individuals and communities have the right to believe, worship, assemble, and govern themselves as they see fit within the bounds of the rule of law of course and without the interference from public power. They are not required to register their beliefs, justify their doctrines, or subject their governance structures to an external, quasi-statutory body.
Erosion of constitutional principles
What the CRL is proposing is not merely an administrative process. It is an erosion of constitutional principles – one that flips the hierarchy of rights. The Constitution protects citizens from the state, not the other way around.
The moment the state acquires the authority to define provisions in the Constitution to their leisure, especially as it relates to what is “acceptable” governance for churches, mosques, temples, and independent ministries, the slope becomes slippery and a disastrous outcome becomes inevitable.
In a country as religiously diverse as South Africa, trying to impose a one-size-fits-all model is not only unworkable, it is profoundly disrespectful to the rich tapestry of our pluralism. Faith communities are not branches of government. They are not subsidiaries requiring compliance manuals. They are living, breathing expressions of conscience – different, autonomous and sacred.
The CRL justifies its initiative by referencing abuses occurring within the religious sector such as corruption, fraud and other acts of criminality. But this is however disingenuous.
Fraud, sexual assault, exploitation, and financial crimes are already illegal and there already exists a multitude of legislative provisions to deal with those crimes. What South Africa lacks is not regulation – it is adequate enforcement.
When the criminal justice system collapses, the state’s instinct is too often to compensate by regulating more, instead of fixing and enforcing what already exists. It is easier to build a new committee than to repair a broken prosecution service. It is easier to draft a code of conduct than to ensure SAPS investigates wrongdoing with competence and urgency.
Ambiguity
Another major red flag of this entire proposal is the ambiguity surrounding the Section 22 ad hoc committee which is to be appointed.
Who will sit on it? Do they have any expertise informing their decisions? What powers will they hold? How will decisions be reached? What is the scope, and what protections exist to prevent unlawful intrusion?
These are all legitimate questions that have to be asked and when decisions are taken and committees are appointed without any appropriate public consultation processes to inform these decisions.
We have become too accustomed to the government taking decisions behind closed doors and ignoring the constitutional imperative of public participation. We must therefore insist on meaningful public participation, full transparency, and multi-faith engagement.
The heart of this issue, although it is also a fundamental part of it, is not religion. It is freedom.It is the freedom to pray without permission. To believe without registration. To organise your faith community without asking a bureaucrat whether your governance structure is compliant.
When a state starts defining how religious communities must operate, it may claim to be protecting citizens – but it is actually protecting its own authority and its own influence. And authority, once expanded, is rarely relinquished voluntarily.
The most dangerous threats to freedom are often bureaucratic, not dramatic; a quiet committee here, a voluntary framework there, and a little “professionalisation” sprinkled on top.
Must not allow this
But freedom is not lost in a single moment. It is signed away while we are busy, complacent, or reassured by technocratic language. As South Africans we must not allow this, we cannot concede such vital matters of constitutional freedom and participatory citizenship. Therefore make sure that you are part of the solution by in this campaign and proclaiming your stand for liberty.
Freedom of religion is one of the oldest, deepest, and most fiercely protected rights in human history. It is the right from which many other freedoms flow. To lose it or even to lose a part of it is to lose something far more profound than constitutional text – it is to lose the moral independence that makes us human.
[Image: Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend