As elections loom, we must interrogate what Christian politicians mean when they call for ‘godly governance’

In a country where, according to Statistics South Africa, more than 80% of the population identifies as Christian, it isn’t surprising to hear or read about professing Christian leaders and members of the wider citizenry, especially those competing for political office, calling for “godly governance”. These calls, furthermore, and understandably so, tend to become more regular and pronounced in the time leading up to the country’s elections — be they local or national.

What does “godly governance” mean, however, and are Christian calls for this kind of governance something citizens who care for democracy and freedom, both Christians and non-Christians alike, should be concerned about?

In the words of theologian James Stamoolis, for example, “a government that declares itself to be operating on Christian principles effectively undercuts certain potential opposition.” Then there are those like the ANC and Adolf Hitler, who, taking one and two steps further respectively, claim they will rule until Jesus comes back, or, cast themselves as a messiah.

Add to the notion of “godly governance” the ideas of “kingdom governance”, “a Christian nation”, “a strong Christian government,” a “Bible-based political party” and things become further complicated and potentially hazardous for democratic ideals.

The category, “strong government” could include a range of governance forms, from Nazi Germany, through any one of the best-governed countries in the world before Covid-19, to present-day Australia. And, what is a “Christian government”? Is this a government made up entirely of professing Christians, or, rather, leaders of any religion or no religion, who happen to pursue the exercise of “godly governance”? There it is again.  

Whether South Africans should be concerned about calls for “godly governance” depends to a substantial degree on how those making such calls conceive of the idea, and then, on the extent to which they clearly communicate their understanding thereof in the public square, if at all.

Those who hear leaders calling for “godly governance” without those same leaders defining the concept in the context of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, will develop their own ideas as to what precisely these leaders mean and what the implications could be for democratic governance and freedoms should such leaders and their political parties come to occupy public office, assuming they don’t do so already. 

Put differently, where leaders prove ineffective in conveying precise meaning while communicating their vision of a better future and a more desirable kind of governance, those looking and listening are likely to fill the resulting conceptual void, whether knowingly or not, with their self-made definitions. Self-conceived observer definitions of “godly governance” may prove counterproductive to the good governance or democratic ends the leaders concerned may be working to achieve in the first place.

For example, how many uninformed or ill-informed South Africans will hear a call for “godly governance” or come across a slogan like “strong Christian government” and become suspicious or fearful as these phrases bring to mind “theocracy” and imaginations of a future involving restrictions on human freedoms?

In South Africa, as some or many citizens will already be aware, the NG Kerk, among whose congregants were my ancestors and present-day family members, provided the doctrinal support that made apartheid a supposedly “godly form of governance”.