Constitution-making and the moral compass

The Herald 02/03/2010

THIS is the first of a two-part series in which BISHOP TREVOR E. C. MANHANGA, presiding Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Zimbabwe, writing in his personal capacity, looks at the role of religion in the constitution-making process and why the exercise should be owned and controlled by Zimbabweans.

FINALLY, with all the disputes and disagreements now having seemingly come to an end, we are set to see the constitution-making process move forward.

As it does so, it enters a very crucial and important phase — the deployment of the outreach teams.

It is now a matter of time before the outreach teams will be deployed to traverse the length and breadth of the nation, to gather the views of the people on how they want to be governed and how they want to live as Zimbabwean citizens.

As this critical, and indeed mammoth undertaking commences, we must all be cognisant of the fact that central to the process of constitution making, must be the welfare and wellbeing of Zimbabweans.

The end product of this process must appeal and be acceptable to the people of Murambinda not Manchester, Guruve not Glasgow, Nyamaropa not New York, Binga not Berlin, Mvurwi not Madrid, Chirumhanzi not London, Shurugwi not Sydney, Watsomba not Washington, Plumtree not Paris, and Harare not The Hague.

In this regard, Government has been absolutely right to insist that foreigners should not influence the constitution making process, in whatever shape or form.

It is to our shame that we have not harnessed our resources and used the proceeds of those resources, notably the diamonds in Manicaland for example, to bankroll the constitution making process, and thereby ensure our total independence from outside interference and influence.

We have already witnessed, (if newspaper reports are anything to go by,) how those who offer financial assistance for the process want to be able to influence the process for obvious reasons.

What all free thinking Zimbabweans should ask themselves and these donors is: Was Africa invited to the Berlin Conference where the continent was carved up by some of these countries?

Did Africans have an opportunity to state if they wanted to be colonised in the first place and who their preferred choice of coloniser was?

The answer to that is a resounding no, and therefore if they did not invite us to be part of the conference which oversaw the partitioning and colonising of Africa, why should we have them as part of the process where as Zimbabweans we seek to mould our future as an independent sovereign nation?

It is quite fitting therefore that as we prepare to commemorate 30 years as an independent and sovereign nation, we are beginning the process of drafting a new constitution for ourselves.

There could be no better 30th birthday present to bequeath to all Zimbabweans than a constitution that reflects the essence of our cultural and spiritual heritage, (who we are), our aspirations (what we want to achieve and become), and how we want to live together and be governed as a people.

It goes without saying that a process of such magnitude and importance cannot and must not be outsourced to, or unduly influenced by, anyone other than Zimbabweans.

This sovereign moment in history beckons for the authentic voice of Zimbabweans to be heard, captured, and encapsulated in a document that we will call our own, with pride and dignity.

As the outreach teams begin their task of traversing the length and breadth of the nation, soliciting the views of the people, with regard to the norms and values that should underpin the new constitutional dispensation, it is important to note the role that religion and culture can, and must play in the constitutional making process.

There should be no doubt in the minds of Zimbabweans of the pivotal role these two pillars of society should have in the formation of the new constitution alongside the other thematic areas.

The importance of considering the views of the people within the context of their religious belief system cannot be overstated, for we are a highly religious people and in fact live in a very religious environment.

I am glad that we have not made the fatal error of relegating religion to an insignificant corner of national life, on the pretext that there needs to be a separation between the sacred and secular, and in doing so fail to see it as part of the great mosaic that makes all great societies and cultures what they are.

Religion for some is a delicate subject. It is much easier to talk about other things like economic development, human rights, the effects of globalisation, empowerment of women, for example, because they believe that religion is a personal matter left to be practised by people in the privacy of their homes and other private places.

This is largely part of the post-modern Western mindset. For many, in two thirds of the world, however, religion is both a personal and very public matter, as it forms an integral part of their social fabric.

One of the major obstacles that our friends from the Western world have in understanding the religious dimension in the lives of most people in the non-Western world is their limited knowledge of the role religion plays in the lives of the people of the south.

The distinction must be made between the manner in which people in Africa for example perceive religion, vis-à-vis those from the West.

As I have already alluded to, we must begin by considering the connection that exists between culture and religion.

History points us to the fact that most of the cultures of the world are at the bottom and religiously based.

Stephen Neill, a missionary and religious scholar from Scotland, says: "There has never yet been a great religion which did not find its expression in a great culture. There has never been yet been a great culture which did not have deep roots in a great religion."

The Global Civil Society Report for 2004-05 also states: "there is no way we can understand the logic, strategies and dynamics of civil society anywhere in the Third World, unless we bring the transcendental dimension back into our analysis.

Religious devotion is a fundamental motive for many social movements in the South, from Latin America to Africa to South Asia."

Those therefore, who do not take into account the dynamics of religion and its place in society, or have no sensitivity towards the religious devotion of so many people, simply will not understand the mechanisms and underlying value systems of people whose actions and world view are shaped by their religious beliefs.

This is especially important when people who occupy the two thirds of the world are seen to reject the ultra liberal lifestyles and practices of the Western world, in matters of morality for example.

It must be clear; therefore, that the values of a people which are largely shaped by their religious and cultural belief systems will find expression in what they find acceptable, and what they feel is undesirable, in the way they will live as a society.

One of the challenges facing Zimbabweans in this constitution making exercise, therefore, will be ensuring minority religious rights within a context dominated by a majority religion.

There can be no escaping the fact that in any one culture there is always a dominant religion.

With the effects of globalisation and the emergence of migrant communities that are an outgrowth of the global village, there will always be a plurality of religious beliefs in any given society, and Zimbabwe is no exception.

Minority religions may find themselves at risk and vulnerable in this context.

We would do well therefore to interrogate the question of how to maintain cultural diversity and respect for religious minorities, when a dominant religion tells us that its truth claims are universal and ought to be believed and lived by all?

The dominant religion must at all costs reject the tendency to absolutism of its cultural and belief systems. As someone said when we do this we, "absolutise our theologies, such that they become ideologies. We then sacrifice human beings to the altar of a fixed idea".

The antidote to this is for us to engage in serious critiquing of our religious beliefs and cultural norms. In doing this we will find that some things are universally bad and some things are universally good.

The caste system for example is bad, so is female genital mutilation, so is the refusal to have children immunised, so is materialism, so is homosexuality.

We must engage with each other in this process with the understanding that we may or may not share the same convictions.

Ultimately while the collective will of the majority will find expression and acceptance in a constitution, this must be coupled with creating space for freedom of religious expression, which does not contravene the accepted norms of the broad society.

Dr Timothy George, Dean of the Beeson Divinity School and executive editor of ‘Christianity Today’ says what we need is an, "ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation".

This calls for a genuine conversation with those of divergent religious and cultural beliefs with the mutual recognition that both sides have truth claims that may or not be shared by the other.

In this regard it would be prudent to remember that the western concept of religion as a private and separate compartment in life does not exist in any of our indigenous cultures in Africa.

We are very clear that all of life is lived within a religious worldview. There is no divide between the secular and the sacred. It is only the modern West, which has secularised and is an exception to this.

This holism is consistent with the biblical understanding that all of life is religion.

This can be seen in Jesus Christ’s command to give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Martin Luther’s doctrine of the, "two swords" does not mean that the church is separate from society.

The challenge for us then is to recognise the centrality of religion in our context, while maintaining cultural diversity and respect for minorities with different religious beliefs to the dominant religion.

As part of constitution making, we need to find areas of convergence between the various religious groups in our nation.

There are a number of areas of convergence where the various religions find common ground. Let’s take a deep concern for the poor.

For example, Prophet Mohammed said: "There is a key for everything, and the key to paradise is love for the poor."

In the Talmud, the Jewish sacred book, we read, "Clothe the naked, visit the sick, comfort the mourner, bury the dead".

The Buddha once said: "If beings knew well, as I know the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds."

In the Hindu Rig Veda we read: "Let the rich man satisfy one who seeks help; and let him look upon the long view; for wealth revolves like the wheels of a chariot, coming now to one, now to another."

The bible, the sacred book of many in Zimbabwe says: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble." (James 1:27).

Another area where we will find that most religions have common values is the right to life. The Christian idea that men and women are created in the image of God or the Buddhist concept of ahimsa, or non-violence towards all beings is a case in point.

With the pro-abortion lobby gearing up its efforts in an attempt to bring into the new constitutional dispensation the right of women to terminate pregnancies outside of the strict exception where there is a threat to the life of the mother, or where there has been the rape of a minor or a mentally handicapped female for example, it is very clear that we are faced with a monumental challenge.

As the pressure will mount for us to adopt a more liberal approach to abortion, we would do well to consider the implications of this kind of viewpoint.

A case in point is the United States of America. It is 36 years since the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion in the United States.

It is estimated that there have been 49 551 703 abortions in America since 1973.

That is close to 50 million Americans who will never know the joy of seeing the sun rise, smell the aroma of coffee percolating, having family and friends sing, "happy birthday to you".

What is most unfortunate in the US is that the number of abortions is disproportionately found in poor and minority communities. Since abortion was legalised in 1973, more than 14 million African-American babies have been killed.

This is more than the total number of African-American deaths from all other causes combined (heart disease, diabetes, cancer, crime, accidents, HIV and Aids, etc). This is about one third of the 43 million abortions that have occurred since 1973.

Is this something we want to emulate here in Zimbabwe?

Whilst there may be in certain instances, legitimate reasons for an abortion to be carried out, (I have alluded to one such reason earlier,) let us not make the grave error of legitimising the killing of unborn babies under the guise of "a women’s right" to her body.

This evil, coupled with that of same sex relationships (homosexuality), must never be countenanced in our nation, and no amount of lobbying by well funded donor agencies traversing the length and breadth of the nation in an attempt to get people to make representations to the outreach teams for the accommodation of these twin evils as part of the fundamental human rights in the new constitution, should sway our thinking.

Zimbabweans should never allow these twin evils to see the light of day in the new constitutional dispensation.

We need to identify and discover those areas of overlapping consensus and in doing so we may need to ask whether it is necessary to have a uniform civil code that should apply to all citizens.

Or, should we allow a plurality of secularity for example? At what stage should the rights and concerns of minority religions be considered?

We must avoid a scenario where religious identity becomes synonymous with social status.

In other words, in a society where there is a dominant religion, does it mean that belonging to a minority religion relegates one to lack of opportunity or poverty?

It would be prudent to understand that often when access to opportunity is related to one’s religious beliefs, then that can become the seedbed for conflict.

Extremist groups usually go looking for recruits among the economically and socially marginalised in society.

Studies show that when people have no means of achieving goals desired by society, like wealth or success, they reject the rules of the game, become frustrated and turn to crime and unlawful behaviour because they have no access to opportunities either for leadership, business and economic opportunities, or the flourishing of their careers and gifts.

Further, at a time in which we hear a lot about wars that are being flamed in the name of religion, we would do well to remember that anyone reading a sacred text, will find that there is something else at the heart of many of the world’s major religions: Our sacred duty towards each other.

We could study these sacred texts further and find that there would be congruence on issues of homosexuality, human rights, poverty, and disease for example.