Causing Consternation
When I first heard about the investigative study on the commercialisation of religion and the abuse of people's belief systems to be conducted by the commission for the Promotion and protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission), I welcomed the initiative. Using this same platform. I argued that given recent happenings within the religious community where we saw people being fed snakes, grass and petrol, the mushrooming of dubious churches and the emergence of suspect investment and Ponzi schemes in the church world, there was a need for such an investigative study. But in the same article, I cautioned against the commission straying into doctrinal issues and causing tensiion between the state and the religious community. We have not entered into doctrinal issues yet, but tensions has already arisen. And I blame this on the overzealousness and careless approach of the commission. It is now a matter of public record that it used the name of the South African Council of Churches (SACC) as a complainant in the subpoena letters it sent to religious organisations.
The SACC has since distanced itself from the subpoenas and strongly objected to the use of its name and/or it being referred to as the general complainant. For the record, the SACC had complained to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) about the two Soshunguve-based pastors who were feeding their congregants snakes, grass and petrol. The SAHRC had then referred these complaints to the CRL Rights Commission. But that is different to being a general complainant and the commission has since undertaken not to use the council as a general complainant. But the faux pas over using the SACC name without its consent was not the only blooper. The very idea and language of summoning religious organisations to appear before the commission caused a lot of consternation within the sectore. The CRL Commission might have correctly interpreted its powers and used the word "subpoena" in line with the act that outlines its mandate. But the state never learns that a straight-jacketed and legalistic approach when dealing with citizens and stakeholders, especially on a sensitive issues such as this one, never works.
One would have thought the state would have learnt from the e-toll debacle that ticking legislative boxes without substantive stakeholder engagement is not always the best approach. Using subpoenas as ther very first act of contact with religious organisations comes across as hostile and alienates even those religious leaders who had seen the merit of and supported the study. The view exists that the commission could have first invited religious organisations or requested them to submit certain information. Only on the basis of non-co-operation with such an invitation could the commission have resorted to issuing subpoenas. If it came to that. Better still, a meeting between the commission and religious leaders should have preceded this study. At such a meeting, the terms of reference for the study would have been explained and religious leaders allowed to make inputs in this regard.
Of course, it would have been up to the commission to decide whethe to consider such inputs but no one would have later argued that we were not consulted. I would have thought this is elementary stakeholder engagement on a matter such as this one. In this regard, I fully agree with the SACC's call for the whole process to be suspended and for the hearings to be halted to allow for a consultation with religious leaders. Careful consideration must be given to the issues that need to be probed. A concern has also arisen that the approach of the study seems to be targeting individual religious leaders. Coupled with this is the seeming "one size fits all" approach. There are institutionalised churches that elect leaders and there are some that are pioneered by individuals who remain at the helm. The religious community in South Africa is very big and diverse. You can ask for an ordination certificate and records from institutionalised formations but how do you treat the small groups that dot our urban landscape worshipping under trees and next to rivers? Then there is the seeming overlapping of roles where the commission is allegedly asking for information that falls within the domain of either Sars or the Department of Social Development in terms of the Non-Profit Act.
All these issues need to be discussed and clarified or the commission runs the risk of delivering a still-born study. Whatever the slip-ups, it is not too late to fix them.
