TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 3

Subsection 5

Acts of omission

Avoiding responsibility

58 The idea of ‘responsibility’ differs amongst groups. While some communities (especially, though not only, English-speaking churches) saw themselves as consciences of the nation¹⁶, others defined their responsibilities primarily to their own members. Communities generally expressed the view that it had been their moral responsibility to speak out against injustice, making their silence under apartheid especially regrettable. Offering a variety of reasons, including complicity with white business interests, poor or inadequate theology or some other reason, faith communities and their leadership confessed to silence in the face of apartheid wrongs. In its submission, the Roman Catholic Church said that this was perhaps its greatest sin. The Salvation Army too, despite its heritage of “standing up and being counted”, noted its lack of courage. Even the Uniting Reformed Church, which in the 1980s was an important player in opposing the theological justification of apartheid, confessed to taking too long to make a stand, particularly against the migrant labour system. Such a failure indicated “silent approval” of state actions.

59 Farid Esack accused the Muslim leadership of failing to speak out strongly against apartheid and especially of remaining silent after the death in detention of Imam Abdullah Haron in 1969, despite the injuries found on his body.

60 The Hindu Maha Sabha said that Hindu religious leaders failed their communities by failing to protest against apartheid. This created the impression that Hindus were part of the system. The community also failed in that it did not remove those “irresponsible” leaders, as it should have done.

Lacking courage

61 Communities as diverse as the Church of England, the Catholics, the Council of African Initiated Churches and the Presbyterians admitted that they could have been more aggressive in campaigning for reform. They gave various reasons for this. Sometimes they were protecting the interests of their wealthy constituents. Sometimes it was a simple failure of nerve or a refusal to place privilege - whether of individuals or of the community - at risk.¹⁷ The Jewish community, with fresh memories of Nazi atrocities, said that it feared to give the impression that it was against the state. The Catholics made a similar observation, citing its tenuous position as ‘die Roomse kerk’. The mostly German Evangelical Lutheran Church of Southern Africa (ELCSA) spoke of its minority cultural status.

Failure to translate resolutions into action

62 In their submissions, faith communities commonly confessed not only to a failure to speak, but also to a failure to act. Many communities that were opposed to apartheid in principle found it difficult to translate strong resolutions into practical action. In the nature of institutional politics, resolutions were watered down by the time they were actually passed.¹⁸ More than logistic problems, such failures represented “a blatant omission and silent approval of the conditions and main cause of human rights violations.”¹⁹

Failure to support members who were involved in anti-apartheid activities

63 Faith communities did not necessarily support the activities of their activist members or even leaders. ELCSA confessed to not encouraging its clergy to speak out against atrocities and failing to support those who did. The Church of the Province apologised to Archbishop Tutu for its failure to support his call for economic sanctions against the former regime. The Baptist Convention accused the Baptist Union of having a number of activist members, including some detained on Robben Island, but refusing to acknowledge them. Farid Esack accused Muslim leaders of denying space and legitimacy to Muslims engaged in anti-apartheid activities.

64 Opposition to apartheid by members of faith communities tended to take the form of individual opposition by people who, often despite the institutions to which they belonged, remained faithful to what they saw as the true spirit of their religion. These included, during the period under review, people such as Trevor Huddleston, Beyers Naudé, Ben Marais, Cosmos Desmond, David Russell, Sheena Duncan, Frank Chikane, Sister Benedicta Ncube, Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, Molvi Cachalia, Abdullah Haron, Hassan Solomon, Farid Esack, Ebrahim Rasool, Ela Gandhi, Franz Auerbach and others. Some rose to leadership positions in their respective churches, notably the Reverend Seth Mokotimi, Archbishop Dennis Hurley, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak.

65 Similarly, institutions that were engaged in anti-apartheid activities and had the apparent verbal support of faith communities were effectively unsupported. In 1975, the Christian Institute was declared an ‘affected’ organisation by the Schlebusch Commission and thus prevented from receiving external funds. Little or no material support came from those churches that had verbally supported it in synods and assemblies. When it was banned two years later, along with its executive leadership, little action was taken and little support given to many of those who were affected.