Online Articles
FREE e-Newsletter
Sign up below to get our free weekly newsletter packed with news & updates.-
We Respect Your Privacy
SA’s moral compass
President Jacob Zuma’s proposed national dialogue on morality in South Africa is most welcome, even if the announcement’s timing and lack of detail may suggest an element of opportunism by a president whose own views on personal morality seem to differ from that of much of the rest of the population.
The National Church Leaders’ Consultation (NCLC), of which the Catholic Church is part, summed up the challenges South Africa faces most eloquently: “As a nation, we have been reaping the fruits of attitudes—social, economic, moral and political—that have undermined and continue to undermine what common values and principles of behaviour we shared in the recent past to achieve our new South Africa.”
The Christian leaders described the South African nation as “directionless and clueless as to where we are going as a country”. South Africa has indeed lost its moral compass. There is a need for a collective effort to guide the nation in the right direction.
However, the terminology of “morality” is ominously loaded because it is so subjective. What embraced by some religions, cultures or philosophies may be abominable to others. It is therefore fundamental that the terms of the proposed dialogue be predicated on common grounds, with an emphasis on equitable and mutually respectful co-existence.
The NCLC has identified a workable premise: “We propose that the starting point be the foundational principle that the human person, and every human person, has intrinsic and inalienable value. All else in any code of morals must take its lead from that basic principle.”
Some thorny issues will be raised immediately. The dialogue will be tested as the question of when life begins is presented, and further when matters concerning sexuality and gender relations arise. These difficult issues must be discussed openly and respectfully, but they must not derail a collective effort to address areas of common agreement.
At the root of the declining sense of ethics is the erosion of personal responsibility. South Africa has been infected with a culture of impunity.
The problem manifests itself right at the top. The presidency of the nation is occupied by a man who fought long and hard to prevent having his innocence of alleged corruption tested in court, and whose lapses of sexual continence have angered the nation.
The culture of impunity is manifest among those who wield political power. Not a few political leaders have milked their power for personal aggrandisement, benefiting from business interests which don’t always give the appearance of complete probity (and lie about it when presented with their unethical dealings), and then are not adequately investigated.
The culture of impunity is manifest among business concerns that conspire to swindle the consumers of staple foods, exploiting the nation’s poorest for profit. And when found out, these racketeers plead ignorance.
The culture of impunity is manifest among criminals, who fancy the odds of not being caught and are not being turned into social outcasts, and among those South Africans who already threaten xenophobic violence after the World Cup, with no evidence of preventative intervention from public officials.
The culture of impunity is manifest on our roads, where motorists believe traffic laws need to be obeyed only at the threat of these laws being enforced.
The culture of impunity has infected all of us who commit infractions — drink-driving, littering, petty theft, coercive behaviour, adultery — simply because we can.
The erosion of ethics and morality in South Africa is linked to this festering culture of impunity, the lack of personal, social and national responsibility. A national conversation on morality will be of no consequence unless it tackles this corrosive mentality.
Comments
2 Responses to “SA’s moral compass”
Leave a Reply
Search Our Site
-
This Weeks Issue
[Click Front Cover to Enlarge]
The Headlines
» Special focus on: Catholics and media communications
Read More | Archives
» Cardinal says no to media laws
» TV talents to sing for pope in UK: Michelle McManus and Susan Boyle
» Praying the Rosary at abortion clinic
» The Shroud mystery solved?
» Parish makes use of new media to raise funds -
[snip] a president whose own views on personal morality seem to differ from that of much of the rest of the population.
His views are condoned by the electorate!
[snip] common values and principles… What are the common values and principles that are ’shared’ in the past? Forgiveness, compassion – do unto others what you want done to you…?! The values we should share socially, politically and economically never existed — they are a dream, a vision, a hope…!
The same Christian community of the past totally let the majority of the most vulnerable in our country down. Few Christian individuals put their ‘money where they mouths were’.
It was a miracle [God’s intervention] that gave us a new dispensation. Perhaps those previously willing to die for ‘rights’ then now seem to believe the NATION owes them for their very willingness.
In this country before, only the apartheid mentality had any “clue” about direction and our ‘nation’ floundered as much (if not more for the majority of its citizens) then as now! We appeared to gain a valid moral compass only in and through the progressive tripartite political agreements prior to the new dispensation, followed by the fruits of our first truly democratic election.
Is it not [snip] fundamental that the terms of the proposed dialogue be predicated on common grounds, with an emphasis on equitable and mutually respectful co-existence, the very ground on which we tried to build a new dispensation?
I understand that the ‘life’ issue of human beings from conception was not a huge ‘moral’ issue prior to the enactment of abortion as a legal right — but the very life, dignity and wellbeing of those on the “wrong” side of the colour bar was!! Where and what was the NCLC saying about that then? If “life” is such a huge issue, why did we not hear from our NCLC loud and clear in the previous political dispensation?
I am concluding that only now are we awakening to truly Christian values!
BUT, we – our Church and all its members – are part of/accountable for what was and of what is!
e.g. [snip] impunity – can anyone actually determine how accountable we have been in the past? What I really mean is that previously there were NO (or precious little) checks and balances – economically, morally, politically etc.
The fact that I am trying to point out that most of the fingers (if not all in one way or another) pointed at our present political leadership was applicable in the past, does not mean to say that I am in any way condoning unacceptable moral or political decisions. I will always hopefully remain passionate about the plight of the most vulnerable.
The point I am really trying to make is that we are all responsible in this crazy amazing nation for WHAT IS!!. It is good that we put our ethical and moral standards on the table and dialogue about what is working and what is not. But, for heavens sake, pointing fingers at those that are democratically elected who do not measure up to the ideal does not help. Paradoxically, the fact that we CAN now point the fingers and speak our vision/ideals/morals/hopes is an immeasurable healthy men(sic)tality!
How about this quote I have just come across: “Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship”. Harry S Truman