It is difficult to imagine how a school pledge recited every morning can accomplish much. But this might be the opportunity to examine the fundamental values of South Africans and the role of religion in our schools.
Some have rejected the pledge outright, while others would modify it: instead of reference to “the injustices of the past”, the DA would prefer a commitment to “heal the divisions of the past”. They are not alone in rejecting any intimation to the horrors of apartheid and colonialism. They feel that the pledge must be future-oriented.
This is a deep fault line in South Africa that refuses to go away. There is a visceral refusal among the previously advantaged to speak unequivocally about apartheid and its injustices. A debate on the pledge must not ignore these “injustices” that cannot be named.
Religious groups have recognised the echo of prayer in the pledge. For them the pledge forces a believer to make a choice between a prayer and a pledge, and there is only one choice for a devout believer.
Since 1994, religious groups have benefited from the Constitution, which protects their right to build communities, pray, marry, eat and drink according to their beliefs. Yet some cry foul when they are asked to commit to the Constitution.
A perceived conflict between the pledge and devotion to God is misguided. These are different kinds of pledges that call for different responses. Without the Constitution, the free and equal exercise of religion cannot take place. At the very least, a pledge should be a commitment to uphold that freedom for all.
But the pledge is perhaps a sign of desperation on the part of the Cabinet. The evident success of the religious sector in South Africa tempts government to adopt its method. If assembled prayer was so successful, the reasoning seems to be, then the state could do worse than follow a tried and tested model.
In reality, school assembly prayers are a feature of South African schools that has not changed since the days of apartheid. Perhaps this is the reason why school bodies do not mind reciting a pledge once its language is refined.
Reciting the pledge would mean business as usual. Some schools will adopt the pledge; others will happily continue to pledge and pray. The sad thing is that many would not know the difference and be none the wiser.
Such a policy would be disastrous for both religion and the pledge; confusing their clearly different purposes and objectives. The values of the Constitution would be recited, but hardly debated. Worse still, the meaning of religion would be seen to clash with the state.
Reciting a pledge like a prayer is even more problematic from the perspective of educational practice. Since 1994 the Ministry of Education has promoted educational methods that focus on interaction, creative application and life-long learning. The pledge spells none of this. Its daily, public performance reinforces a model of rote learning and authoritarianism. It wants South African youth to make a commitment to the best values of citizenship using a model that fundamentally contradicts them.
Perhaps the Cabinet and the minister are not unaware of this connection. Using religion as a model for the nation has been used elsewhere. With disastrous consequences, the nation state has demanded the blind devotion it has seen in religion. The pledge might be one step in this direction.
The Constitution is hardly conducive to this development. And the diversity of South African citizens would make such a project totally unfeasible. To avoid this consequence, public debate must be stepped up: for the Constitution, for its values and for religion.
Abdulkader Tayob holds the National Research Foundation Chair at UCT on Islam, African publics and religious values