Desmond Tutu: saint or sinner?

Tutu… hero or a heretic, patriot or sell-out? The recent outbursts by the political theologian and liberation icon, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, over the failure to issue an entry visa to the Dalai Lama by the South African government has been received by South Africans and the world with mixed feelings.

Quite a sizeable number of commentators have castigated Tutu for his outbursts. Others praised him for his courage and principled position.

This occurrence is important for the light that it sheds in understanding quite a number of issues in relation to apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa.

More critically, Tutu's outbursts signpost important issues of state and church relations. The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, was invited to Tutu's 80th birthday celebrations.

The Dalai Lama has lived in India for decades because of hostilities between his people and China.

The South African government did not issue him with a visa and, as a consequence, he cancelled the trip. Tutu castigated the ANC government for its procrastination in giving the Dalai Lama a visa.

It is essential for me to closely analyse Tutu's message and its ramifications for matters of state and church relations.

Tutu forewarned President Jacob Zuma in a fashion that reminds the reader of the 8th-century prophets.

He spoke with a delegated authority against the long life of the ANC. For Tutu, the ANC government was worse than its predecessor. While this may be an overstatement by the icon, it must be noted that there is a way in which the ANC regime resembles the one it succeeded, by deciding to take sides with the oppressor, in this case being China.

This is not the first time that South Africa has done this… don't you remember that this country treated the Zimbabwean president with kid gloves when he was running his country down, claiming that they were involved in quiet diplomacy.

Have we forgotten that just recently our government was refusing to recognise the transitional leadership council of Libya simply because it was siding with Muammar Gaddafi. The list is endless of the tendencies to side with oppressors.

Theology

This is not uncommon in Africa; it has been true in Zambia, in Malawi and in Zimbabwe. Prophets are there to criticise the state, especially by taking the side of the oppressed.

In theology, this is known as "the preferential option for the poor and oppressed" as opposed to taking the side of the powerful rulers. That is what makes one a credible prophet, one who speaks truth to power.

The second important, noteworthy point in Tutu's statement is his promise to pray for the removal of the ANC government. The question this raises: is it theological for a church person to pray for the removal of a sitting government from office?

The answer is yes.

If churches prayed for the removal of the apartheid government, they also retained the right to pray for the removal of post-apartheid governments if they deemed them to be unjust. Religious communities, including churches, can make or break leaders.

The ways in which they achieve this are varied and complex. Many revolutions of the world included religious and church people.

I doubt that Tutu is talking about prayer alone. He may be talking about influence. He is saying he will influence the electorate against the ruling party if need be. That was his warning to the government.

The difficult question that Tutu must answer is who is he speaking for? Is he speaking on behalf of the Dalai Lama, is he speaking on his own behalf or is he speaking for the majority of South Africans, or on behalf of God?

While this question is difficult to answer, Tutu must be credited for his bravery and consistency. When he spoke against apartheid he was not speaking on his own behalf.

He was also not speaking on behalf of the church, because churches were ambiguous towards apartheid: some supported it, while a minority opposed it and a majority of churches remained indifferent.

He was also not speaking on behalf of the exiled liberation movements, even though his message was consistent with theirs.

They were all calling for "freedom in their lifetime".

But what is clear is that theology teaches us that God is opposed to any form of oppression and loves freedom, so Tutu was talking on behalf of God. At least that is what he believed, together with all those who believe in the doctrine of the righteousness of God.

I also doubt that Tutu had a sinister agenda in inviting the Tibetan spiritual leader to his birthday celebrations. It is also hard to believe that the issue of the Dalai Lama's visa could have been left to the caprices of junior officers in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The profile of this man demanded that some political clearances be sought by the ministry officials before a decision could be made. In any case, ministry officials get their brief from the presidency.

The statement by the deputy president that he believed that the Dalai Lama was going to be issued with a visa if he had not cancelled his trip was a veiled admission that this visa application was being handled at a very high level.

Tutu's outbursts expose us to the dysfunction in some high level offices of our government. That is what we should be worried about more than Tutu's prayers.

We should also be asking the question of what makes a man who has done so much for this country, a man of impeccable struggle credentials, a patriot and a world icon, castigate our government?

Instead of castigating him, we need to see if he may be right about his analyses of our government and address that.

I also think those who have asked Tutu to pray for the government to improve its functions than for its downfall have a point.

Religious leaders are not only there to curse political leaders, but to give them guidance, to bless them when they are doing a good job, to forgive them when they sin and repent and to pray for them to carry out their public duties with integrity and nobility.

Lives

However, if they do not listen and place the lives of their subjects in continuous danger and jeopardy, abuse public resources with impunity, it is the responsibility of such leaders not only to pray for the downfall of such governments, but to even work for that.

That is what Tutu did with PW Botha's government.

He went to meet Botha several times, and when Botha continued with his stubbornness and spoke to Tutu as if he was a small boy, Tutu retaliated with similar outbursts.

He used the pulpit, political rallies and funerals to preach and pray for the downfall of the apartheid government.

No government is exempted from the righteous anger of those who have the ability to love truth and justice.

The question whether Tutu is a hero or a heretic has no precise answer. In fact, heroes are made at death.

Obviously, he is a human being with his own interests, weaknesses and strength. His contribution to democracy in this country is beyond any doubt. For me, Tutu might have put his finger on the wound.

He is against the concept of an empire. Empires have their way at the expense of vulnerable individuals and small nations.

Tutu is simply saying every human being has a right. In this regard, he is not a heretic, but rather true to his beliefs, for theology teaches us human beings are created in the image of the creator and they are all equal before him.

The American constitution has taught us that all human beings are equal and they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights of freedom and liberty. This includes the Dalai Lama.

So is Tutu a hero or heretic, a patriot to be celebrated or a sell-out to be stoned? You be the judge.

--------
Dr R Simangaliso Kumalo is head of the School of Theology and Religion at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.