TayoBlog

The South African Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, announced the introduction of a school pledge to be memorized and recited by all school learners at the beginning of every school day. The pledge read as follows:

We the youth of South Africa
Recognising the injustices of our past,
Honour those who suffered and sacrificed for justice and freedom.
We will respect and protect the dignity of each person,
And stand up for justice
We sincerely declare that we shall uphold the rights and values of our Constitution
And promise to act in accordance with the duties and responsibilities
that flow from these rights.
! KE E: / XARRA // KE
Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika

It is difficult to imagine how a school pledge recited every morning can accomplish much. However, the proposed plan might just be the opportunity to deeply examine the fundamental values of South Africa, the role of religion and education in our schools.

Minister Pandor’s proposal has received mixed reaction. Some have rejected it outright while others would rather have a modified text, particularly with regard to the second line that refers to “the injustices of the past.”

The Democratic Alliance has been quick to present an alternate pledge where reference of injustices has been replaced by a commitment to “heal the divisions of the past.” There remains a deep and visceral refusal among the previously advantaged to speak clearly and unequivocally about apartheid and its injustices. A debate on the pledge must not ignore this thing about “injustices” that cannot be named, and cannot be thought.

The pledge has clearly religious undertones and implications as well. Some religious groups have recognized the uncanny relationship between a pledge and prayer. For them, the pledge forces a believer to make a choice between a prayer and a pledge. Put in this way, there seems only one choice for a devout believer.

The equation between a pledge and a prayer is worth another look. Since 1994, religious groups without exception have benefited tremendously from the freedom that the Constitution guarantees. The number of people turning to religion has increased exponentially, building Churches, temples, mosques and other social fields. Moreover, many pray, marry, eat, and drink according to their religious values, and demand to do so on constitutional grounds if any of these are slightly threatened. And so it should be.

At the same time, these very believers cry foul when they are asked to commit to the Constitution. The fundamental conflict between the pledge and devotion to God is simply misguided. They are two different kinds of pledges that call for different responses. Equating them ignores the basis that the Constitution creates and provides for the exercise of religion. 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 oneself and for all.

The pledge is perhaps a sign of desperation on the part of the Cabinet in general, and the Minister of Education in particular. 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. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

In fact, school assembly prayers are a feature of South African schools that have not fundamentally changed since the days of apartheid. Perhaps this is the reason why school bodies would not mind refining the language in the proposed pledge, in the direction of the DA’s suggestions, and adopt it. Reciting the pledge would not be a way of addressing the values of the Constitution, the demands it makes and the possibilities it provides.

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 mistaken for a bold 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 continuous learning. Despite its evident failures, OBE and Curriculum 2005 promoted an interactive process of learning.

The proposed pledge spells none of this. Its daily and public performance competes against established educational policies. It reinforces a model of rote learning, memorization and authoritarianism, all the hallmarks of education and religion in South Africa. It wants South African youth to make a commitment to the most important values of being citizens using a model that fundamentally contradicts them.

Of course, perhaps the cabinet and the Minister are not unaware of this connection. Using religion to create a model for the nation has been used by other modern countries. With disastrous consequences, the nation state has demanded the commitment, the blind following and the devotion that it has seen in religion. The model of religion has been all too tempting, and the pledge might be one step in this direction.

The South African constitution is hardly conducive to this development. And the diversity of South African citizens would make such a project totally unfeasible. In order to avoid this consequence, public debate must be stepped up: for the Constitution, for its values and also for religion.