Sacred trust not to bend the constitution to private belief

LISTENING to Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng this week, you’d almost be tempted to believe that President Jacob Zuma appointed him for sheer amusement value. Mogoeng, in a statement first reported, then parodied, then anguished over, told a conference at Stellenbosch University that infusing more religion into our law “could yield a product that is for the common good of all”.

Had the suggestion of bending the constitution to accommodate Mogoeng’s religion come from, say, Julius Malema, it would have provided the obligatory 20 minutes of ritual angst on morning radio.

However, this screwball suggestion came from the man appointed specifically to ensure our constitution doesn’t get manhandled by politicians and zealots — which makes it far more ominous.

Mogoeng was right in diagnosing the “extremely low levels to which morality has degenerated”, citing corruption, price-fixing and other evils as evidence. But his tonic — to factor religion into law-making — is a sign of such feeble reasoning and flaky logic that it just underscores the fact that this is no great legal mind at work. This is no Pius Langa, Arthur Chaskalson, or even (the man Zuma passed over for the post) Dikgang Moseneke.

Mogoeng’s statement shows an alarming tone deafness for one of the principal tenets of our 1996 constitution: the separation between church and state. But it’s also short on a logical foundation. The myth that a greater infusion of religion into the political environment necessarily creates a more “moral society” has long since been debunked.

As author Sam Harris points out, the 2005 United Nations Development Report showed that the most secular societies — including Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Denmark — were the healthiest when it came to measures such as homicide rates, adult literacy and income equality.

By contrast, the 50 lowest-ranked nations were all “unwaveringly religious”. You only have to consider the brutality of regimes such as the Taliban to get a sense of how truly scary this notion is when carried to an extreme. More religion does not equal more morality, my lord. Sure, Mogoeng might use imagery with an uncommon dexterity that suggests there is brilliance buried there somewhere.

For example, his message that “theft is the semen that breeds fraud and corruption” will remain wedged in the minds of Stellenbosch students for many years.

But as South Africa’s top judge and the guardian of its constitution, Mogoeng is less than mediocre. Which is, perhaps, an accurate representation of the presidency of the man who appointed him.