Freedom is not solely a liberation from structural injustice, South African priest

South Africa observed Freedom Day on April 27, commemorating three decades since the historic transition from apartheid to democracy. The observance has offered Catholic clerics the opportunity to share their perspectives on the nation’s journey. They are calling for solidarity with the oppressed and an internal transformation of the citizenry.

Yet, as the formal structures of segregation have been dismantled, the daily reality for many remains complicated by economic disparity and corruption. In an interview with Crux Now, Father Stan Muyebe, Director of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) Justice and Peace Commission suggests that the definition of freedom must evolve even further. He argues that the concept must move beyond political rights to encompass ethical responsibility and personal transformation.

“Many moral and political challenges that South Africa faces today can be attributed to the failure to appreciate that freedom is not solely a liberation from structural injustice, but also an effort to free myself from greed, corruption, violence and the abuse of power,” Muyebe told Crux Now.

From evaluating the health of the nation’s democracy and the rising influence of money in politics to addressing the controversial “white genocide” narrative and the Catholic Church’s role as a “field hospital,” Father Muyebe provides a comprehensive look at the hurdles—and the hopes—facing the Rainbow Nation.

Following are excerpts of that interview…

Crux Now: As South Africa celebrates another Freedom Day, to remember the transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994, how has the definition of ‘freedom’ evolved for the average South African over the last three decades?”

Muyebe: During the struggle against apartheid, freedom was rightly understood as freedom from an unjust and oppressive system. In the post-apartheid South Africa, there was a need to complement this with an alternative idea of freedom – freedom as personal liberation or inner transformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in this respect.

Many moral and political challenges that South Africa faces today can be attributed to the failure to appreciate that freedom is not solely a liberation from structural injustice, but also an effort to free myself from greed, corruption, violence and the abuse of power.

At the heart of this development is the decision that was rightly taken during the CODESA negotiations that the new South Africa be grounded in constitutionalism, centered on the Bill of Rights. Freedom is largely understood in terms of these rights, sometimes with little regard to the common good as an ethical framework within which these rights should be exercised.

As a corrective, some have proposed the national dialogue come up with a social compact, in form of a charter of citizen responsibilities, including a code of ethical conduct for those exercising legislative, judicial, and executive power. While this may not resolve all challenges, it could serve as an important foundation for situating freedom within a stronger ethical framework, the common good framework.

How do you assess the health of democracy in South Africa today?

We need to give some credit to the state of democracy in South Africa. Across the continent, it is common for liberation movements that become ruling parties to lose their electoral dominance after about 25–30 years, particularly in major urban centers.

In many African countries, a familiar pattern emerges when such movements begin to lose legitimacy: increasing resort to electoral manipulation, questionable constitutional amendments, and at times even violent repression of opposition parties and citizens. This has not been the case in South Africa. In the 2024 South African general election, we witnessed a clear decline in the electoral dominance of the ANC and a transition away from a one-party dominant system—without the kind of systemic repression seen elsewhere on the continent.

As a result, unlike in many other contexts, South Africa continues to benefit from relatively strong democratic institutions: an independent judiciary, a professional and credible electoral commission, a free and vibrant media, and an active civil society. Members of Parliament are able to criticize the president openly without fear of reprisal—something still lacking in parts of the continent. Elections are generally free and fair, and outcomes are accepted by the ruling party.

However, South Africa also faces significant risk factors that could threaten the future of its democracy. There is particularly a concern around the widening gap between rich and poor, the growing influence of money in politics, instability within emerging coalition arrangements, and systemic weaknesses in holding public officials accountable for corruption. The ongoing commission of inquiry has also raised concerns about the capture of the state by organized crime and how this erodes the country’s democracy. Together, these dynamics have contributed to rising voter apathy and a growing sense of disillusionment with democratic institutions.

There are also broader geopolitical concerns, particularly the increasing alignment between white supremacist regime in the United States and white supremacist groups within South Africa. It is not yet clear how these will unfold in the coming years.

During the struggle against apartheid, the Catholic Church was a vocal voice for justice. Do you believe the church is still speaking with that same prophetic voice today, or has the landscape changed?

In post-apartheid South Africa, the Church in general — not only the Catholic Church — has issued numerous statements condemning the greed of political elites and their disregard for the poor. Despite these efforts, there remains a strong perception that the Church has lost its prophetic witness. Perhaps the current conditions in South Africa call for a form of prophetic witness that is broader and deeper than the mere issuing of statements or pastoral letters denouncing corruption and structural injustice.

Of course, there are differing views on what the Church should do to recover its prophetic voice. In my humble view, in order to renew this witness, the Church needs to embrace the vision of a synodal Church. This requires a synodal conversion suited to the African context. In the African context, being a synodal Church also means becoming what Pope Francis calls “a Church as a field hospital during and after battle.”

To become a Church that is a field hospital is to become a Church that is a close friend to those on the margins—the modern-day “lepers” of society, the so-called untouchables: Those living in informal settlements and slums, the homeless, unemployed youth in taverns, waste pickers, sick miners, exploited workers on farms and in factories, and victims of floods and other forms of social and spiritual vulnerability. In practice, this means having parishes, the religious, caritas apostolates, and justice and peace groups directed at establishing ministry of presence among the untouchables. It means having networking sessions and discernment sessions as church agents living out the ministry of the church as the field hospital.

A Church that establishes such spiritual and pastoral closeness will inevitably be wounded because of its proximity to the wounded. However, by walking in a spirit of prayerful discernment with those at ground zero, and learning from their trust in God amid inhumane conditions, the Holy Spirit will teach the Church what it must be saying to “Pharaoh” and to the structures of greed and indifference. The ministry of presence at the ground zero, the ministry of church as field hospital, is therefore a school where the Holy Spirit is teaching the Church about the suffering face of Christ in the poor and what the Church should say to Pharaoh about the injustice and the suffering that the most vulnerable in the society are being subjected to. Currently, the Church speaks truth to power to Pharaoh after consulting and listening to the views that big NGOs, policy experts, and mainstream media have on national issues. Being a synodal Church brings a new approach: Listening to the Holy Spirit while walking with the poor at the ground zero.

 There is much debate about Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). Some see it as necessary redress; others see it as enriching a small political elite. How does the church view the pursuit of economic justice in a way that truly uplifts the dignity of the poor?

From the perspective of the Church, the question is not simply whether Black Economic Empowerment is necessary, but whether it is achieving its moral purpose. The Church affirms that redress is essential: the injustices of apartheid were not only political but also profoundly economic, and they continue to shape the lives of millions.

We should admit that much of BEE has been concentrated on ownership transfer and equity deals at the top end of the economy, often benefiting a relatively small and politically connected group. This has not translated into broad-based economic inclusion. In addition, governance challenges, including fronting and rent-seeking, have weakened the credibility and intended impact of the policy.

The measure of empowerment is not the wealth of a few, but the dignity restored to the many. Any system that enriches only a few, while the many remain excluded, falls short of the demands of the common good. The test of any policy is not its intention, but its impact on the poorest and most vulnerable. Economic transformation must be broad-based, transparent, and accountable, or it risks losing its moral legitimacy.

There are narratives, both locally and internationally, claiming that there is a ‘white genocide’ happening in South Africa, particularly regarding farm attacks. How do you respond to these allegations, and how do we address the genuine fears of some communities without stoking racial division?

Many people are aware that the narrative of “white genocide” is false. This claim should be understood as a disinformation campaign, either intended to intimidate South Africa into withdrawing its case at the International Court of Justice against Israel, or to justify possible future interference in South Africa’s sovereignty.

As the global order shifts away from a rule-based international system, the weak countries in the world, the majority of whom are in Africa, now find themselves at the mercy of the superpowers and their coercive diplomacy. The disinformation campaigns will increasingly become a key feature of coercive diplomacy. As the Church, our calling is to proclaim the Gospel of truth, fraternity, and the common good in a world that is progressively normalizing coercive diplomacy and the use of disinformation.

Many feel that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission prioritized forgiveness at the expense of justice. Is it possible to achieve true social cohesion in South Africa without addressing the economic and land disparities that apartheid created?

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission made an indispensable contribution to national healing, but it was never designed to complete the work of healing and justice.

The mandate of the Commission covered the redress to the violation of political and civic rights. It did not extend to the apartheid and its violation of social and economic rights. That is why a separate process was established to facilitate the land reform and redress of land disparities that apartheid created.

The programs like land reform or BEE, which were created to address the injustices of the past, have generally been a failure, and there are a lot of factors behind the failure. These factors are well documented in the reports of various commissions. One of the factors is the capture of the programs by the elite interests, both political and corporate. Mechanisms originally intended for justice and redress have, in certain instances, been diverted into instruments of accumulation and patronage. The original noble intentions have in the process been compromised by systemic corruption and elite appropriation. Greed of the elite, and in some cases the greed of the intended beneficiaries themselves, has contributed to the collapse of the land reform program and the BEE. There is a national dialogue that is supposed to discuss the three decades of post-apartheid South Africa and map out a shared vision for the common good economy. Hopefully, the process will provide a space for a courageous conversation about the future of apartheid redress, particularly how to balance the tension between the imperatives of growing South Africa’s economy and the imperatives of restructuring the economy so that it is more inclusive.