Apology alone not enough

Following the recent constitutional court judgement against the president and the National Assembly, and given the leadership crisis the country has been thrown into, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) together with the National Religious Leaders Council (NRLC) went to meet the leadership of the ruling party last Friday.

The purpose of the meeting was twofold. First, to impress upon the ANC leadership the mood of the nation and the pain and hurt the country is going through. As religious leaders in a country that is overwhelmingly religious we do have a sense of the pulse of the nation. Second, to convey to the ruling party our position that President Jacob Zuma has lost all moral legitimacy to govern and that it has become morally difficult for the president to continue governing in the face of a judgement that has in effect found him to have breached his oath of office.

It is evident that the ruling party is itself hurting. Some of its stalwarts and members are hurting. The pronouncements by some of its luminaries and branches bear testimony to this. Importantly, by virtue of its position in society, when the ruling party hurts, the nation hurts.

To the extent that religion has a healing side, religious leaders had to weigh in on the matter. Critically, we do have the responsibility of being the prophetic voice to the nation. We cannot stand idly by while the nation is going down a morally compromised path.

Though approaching the meeting with a position, one was conscious of the fact that we can disagree passionately about this matter without surrendering our own principled beliefs and without going for each other’s throats. Indeed we can engage in serious conversation about what is a most deeply felt subject and truly challenge each other, teach each other, and learn from each other.

Although it is our collective view as the NRLC and the SACC that the president should voluntarily step down, we also understand dilemma the ruling party is facing. That we don't make light of. But this should not mean an absence of consequences when a wrong has been committed and to do the right thing

Which takes us to the issue of an apology by the president. I have seen comments challenging the clergy about its reported rejection of the president’s apology. Let me say upfront that as a religious leader I understand the call of forgiveness and the need to practice it. But before forgiveness can be dispensed, it is important to have clarity on what is being apologized for and therefore what needs to be forgiven.

Let us examine the facts. The Constitutional Court found that President Zuma “failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution” as the supreme law of the land. And what did the president apologize for? “The [Nkandla] matter has caused a lot of frustration and confusion, for which I apologize, on my behalf and on behalf of government.” The dissonance between what the ConCourt said the president had failed to do and what he is apologizing for is there for all to see. And this is one aspect of the apology religious leaders find problematic.

Secondly, we should not confuse forgiveness with impunity or an absence of consequences for one’s actions. Society daily forgives those who have wronged its collective self but such individuals still face the consequences. The apology alone is certainly not enough. And this is where we part ways with those who say because the president has apologized and will pay back the money spent on non-security features at his Nkandla residence, the matter should be allowed to rest.

Paying back the money fulfills the requirements of restorative justice. It restores to society what was unduly taken from it. However, it leaves the requirements of punitive justice unaddressed. We would be sending a wrong signal to society if citizens who have done wrong were to get an impression that all that is required after their wrongdoing is to offer an apology without facing any punitive consequences.

Also, let us not forget that as head of state, the president leads 1,2 million public servants. If some among them were to flout the laws (as they sometimes do) that govern the public service either because of ignorance or wrong advice, would we accept it if an apology was all that was required of them? One is gravely concerned about the culture and precedence we may be setting here.

As we continue to engage on this difficult subject, it is our sincere hope that both the president and ruling party will place the interests of the country first. For what good is it to preserve the party and tear the nation apart?