National pledge: The hallmark of patriotism

WHAT is clear is that most nations have national pledges of sorts.

Whether these should be compulsory is another thing. Right now Zimbabwe is in a polarised State that to some, anything introduced by the ruling Zanu-PF party has to be resisted or derided no matter how virtuous and well-meaning.

The nation should reflect on whether this is really good for the country. Yesterday, schools in Zimbabwe opened for the second term.

It appears the controversial recitation of the National Pledge will be happening at least until June 2016 when the final decision will be made by the Constitutional Court (Concourt).

The controversy surrounding national pledges has not started with Zimbabwe. The United States has had the same problem if not worse than what is happening in Zimbabwe.

Americans are some of the most patriotic people this columnist has known. They revere their constitution and flag above all else.

That to this writer is the hallmark of patriotism. Reverence to the national constitution comes with respecting the flag and defending the country when it is attacked by foreigners.

The latter includes in the media and cyberspace. Once there is a consensus the question is whether the pledge is necessary?

For some reasons Zimbabweans look up to Britain and United States.

Whether it is the MTV and colonialism or not this writer is not sure. But it seems no matter what progress China makes or brings, some Zimbabweans just prefer the West.

So in discussing the national pledge, those two countries will be used here as examples.

From 1954 many Americans have taken the State, school boards and sometimes the federal government and its many surrogates to court to contest the constitutionality of being forced to recite the national pledge of allegiance. Theirs has these words;

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

The Zimbabwean one which comes from the Preamble to the Constitution has the following words;

"Almighty God, in whose hands our future lies, I salute the national flag. Respecting the brave fathers and mothers who lost lives in the Chimurenga/Umvukela.

"We are proud inheritors of the richness of our natural resources. We are proud creators and participants in our vibrant traditions and cultures. So I commit to honesty and the dignity of hard work."

The British have the Oath of Allegiance and a Pledge. The first part is the Oath, the second part is the Pledge. Those who are registering as British Citizens have to recite the following words;

"I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values.

I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen."

Whether one supports the Monarch or is a Republican it doesn't matter. They will have to recite the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance was first composed in 1887. It went through a couple of revisions.

In 1942, it was adopted by Congress and used during the swearing in of members. It then became the official pledge in 1945. The current version was adopted on Flag Day in 1954.

What they added in 1954 is the controversial bit that says, "under God".

Since then there have been countless court challenges with citizens contesting that their constitutional rights were being violated by the Pledge.

In many cases just like the Zimbabwean case, they cited the Bible or their non-belief in it as a basis of challenging the national pledge.
American courts have been consistent. The majority of the court decisions favoured the daily reciting of the pledge because it was a patriotic ritual.

Some of the cases involved the refusal to salute the flag by some students which resulted in expulsion from school. There were attempts to include an exemption for those of the Jehovah's Witness persuasion.

Many other cases were brought in by atheists and others. In most cases the courts finding that reciting the pledge is not a matter of religion, but that of patriotism.

In many of the cases where reciting the pledge was upheld, the courts applied what they called the "Coercion Test".

They found that if the 'coercion' was for patriotic and not religious reasons then the challenge failed.

They focused on the principal purpose of the pledge, which is really to inspire patriotism. Those who oppose the national pledge also argue that there have been attacks against the British way of life by Islamic extremists some of whom recited the Oath of Allegiance.

But some can argue that maybe if they had recited the pledge everyday it would have made a difference?

The counter-argument is that, does a marriage vow every day before breakfast make someone more faithful?

Aren't some vows broken a few hours after the very first recital?

Is this a futile attempt at indoctrination or an effort to stimulate the psyche of the nation to who we are and how we came to be?

Those supporting it feel the national pledge is meant to always bring this awareness. But those opposed to it say it is a daily hollow gesture.

Reciting commitment does not invoke a sense of commitment. It is just ritualistic vain babbling.

They further contend that whenever one goes to the UK Cricket grounds when the England team is playing either India or Pakistan, one would see generations of the Pakistanis or Indians supporting India.

These people have been UK citizens for generations. They have taken these oaths of allegiance but their loyalty remains with their countries of origin.

This means patriotism cannot be forced on anyone. One of the reasons for this is because the people of colour never really feel they belong to the United Kingdom despite all the State efforts.

The West Indies brothers and sisters are the same. What that says is that nationalism or patriotism is not something that can be forced on anyone.

Should the UK go to war with Zimbabwe (God forbid) people would be surprised by how many Zimbabwe Britons would be charged with treason for fighting on the side of Zimbabwe and yet they took the Oath of Allegiance to be loyal to the Queen and nothing of the sort in Zimbabwe.

But this again seems to make a case for the recitation of the national pledge every day and its inclusion in the curriculum.

America does not seem to suffer from the British conundrum because everyone recites the national pledge of allegiance.

Those school boards that had decided to do away with it faced a backlash from the national sentiment which viewed such decisions as unpatriotic and had to reverse their decisions.

What is clear is that most nations have national pledges of sorts. Whether these should be compulsory is another thing.

Right now Zimbabwe is in a polarised state that to some, anything introduced by the ruling Zanu-PF party has to be resisted or derided no matter how virtuous and well-meaning.

The nation should reflect on whether this is really good for the country.

The ruling party has the mandate to govern and throwing derision at every initiative for no clear rhyme or reason does not help because it won't get rid of it.

But on the other hand Zanu-PF has to also reflect on what it has done or not done to bring sentiment to this level. It is granted that, that's how politics is like.

The Republicans have virtually opposed everything from Obama no matter how noble.

If the people can't agree on everything, can we at least agree that the nation needs a pledge? On whether it should be recited everyday is another question.

All nations that have the national pledge have argued that it is unifying and reinforces national values.

The problem is that we can't even agree as a nation on what those are. Affirmation of an allegiance to Zimbabwe is not swearing to join a political party.

If the argument is about the wording, then it is understandable and can be resolved. But if it is about the principle of our country having one at this rate if Zanu-PF would have said Zimbabwe needs a National Flag today, someone would have opposed and taken people to the Constitutional Court.

Are Zimbabweans just becoming litigious or they are just frustrated by the slow pace in harmonising local legislation to the Constitution so they are expediting the process through Case Law?

But this attack on the national pledge is not as simple as it looks. It is an attack on the Preamble of the Constitution and therefore on the Constitution itself and the Founding Principles of the Constitution and Nation.

This is going to be a two instalment piece with the next instalment showing why the Constitution is under attack. The religious arguments are just a disguise for what actually is at play here.

The hypocrisy of it is that people take oaths when they marry.

They take oaths when they appear in court. It is just a sacred sign of verity. Anyone who has signed as an affidavit or gone before a Commissioner of oaths for verity has taken an Oath or Sworn.

Why nobody has challenged these is a wonder. Even the Christian Clergy who are citing Mathew 5:34 may need to check in the words they uttered in their ordination for they might fall foul of this scripture.

Their own marriages may have violated this scripture for any solemnised avouchment may not pass this test they are setting for themselves.

The Catholics have the Apostles' Creed every service. The Pentecostals have the Prayer of Salvation when one receives Jesus.

How different are these from the national pledge? Where do these stand with respect to the scripture above? Why isn't the same argument being used to attack the National Anthem which also has reference to God?

Next week we will attempt to answer all questions