POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA

POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND DEMOCRACY IN AFRICAN CONTEXT1a
BY: PETER QEKO JERE

INTRODUCTION:
In the beginning, God created man in His own image as a social and political animal and gave him dominion and authority over all created beings. Man had political power to rule, to be in control and to be totally in charge. This man however was created to live in mutual relationship with God. After the fall the political authority got transferred to Satan (Isaiah 10:14). Thus Satan became the ruler over all that which God created including man himself. Man who had the dominion became captive under the devil’s control. Thus the power of sin overpowered man. Therefore in this paper, we shall look into the OT political ethics and democracy after the fall. We shall see whether there is some OT political and democratic concepts that can be used to improve the political situation in Africa.

(I). BRIEF AFRICAN POLITICAL AND DEMOCRATIC HISTORY.
For us to understand OT political and Democratic concepts, we need to first look into the account of African politics and democracy. This is important because we cannot understand the current African politics and democratic problems unless we go back and see the whole history in a larger context.. The continent of Africa is going through big western political democratization. This is the liberal democracy, which is based on the western culture as opposed to the African multicultural society. But the African political and democratic changes dates back to the good old days when different kingdom leaders governed the whole African continent. Like in the North and West Africa, there were kingdoms of Egypt, Carthage, Kush Axum, Songhai, Ghana, Mali, and Western Sudan. In the south and central Africa, there were kingdoms like the Mwenemotapa, Zulu, Bemba, Chewa to mention but a few.

During the 14 –17th Century, AD, the continent was bombarded with the intrusion of foreign ideologies as many European went on the voyages of discovery and exploration. Thus people like Vasco Dagama, Bartholomew Diaz and prince Henry the Navigator had a great influence on the whole discovery journey around the continent of Africa. In the Interior, missionary explorers like Dr. David Livingston, Henry Molton Stanley, Richard Burton, John Speke, Richard lender, Robert Moffat, William Murray and Robert Laws, had great influence in the spreading of the new western culture. Of course some came as Christian missionaries who later worked for their home government. Allan Scholefied indicates that some many missionaries went into the interior of Africa and specifically, Richard Burton spent many years in the western African coast (1975:7).

It was this inland exploration and the western influences that led to the partition of Africa in 1885-1888. This partition of Africa was the dividing up of African beautiful land among various European nations. Such nations included Britain, Italy, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Germany. Now in all the various territories the western nations took from Africa, they established their own political administration. Thus we see that the governments in Europe controlled the continent of Africa. For instance, all British colonies were controlled in London while all the French colonies were controlled in Paris. Soon after the partition and colonization of Africa, the continent went through a long period of political struggle and democracy.There was a strong wind of African nationalism. This was the Africans desire to rule themselves. This was the independence struggle from the white colonialists. Of course this period saw all African nation getting their freedoms. We need at this moment in time to know that South Africa was an exceptional because of apartheid. The last step of western democratization was seen from the late eight’s to the middle ninety’s when the western rich nations forced many African nations to have the western form of multiparty democracy if they were to receive economical Aid.

(A). AFRICAN TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY.
The one thing that people need to know is that we cannot understand African politics unless we go back to the true knowledge of African Traditional Democracy. This African Traditional Democracy is opposed to the Western Traditional Democracy that has been imposed on many African nations. But first, lets us understand the actual meaning of Democracy. According to the Oxford Dictionary, democracy is defined as that form of government in which the sovereign resides in the people as a whole and is exercised by them or by officers elected by them (1994:213). But in the American constitution, democracy is defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In other word, it’s the government where peoples political will and power is respected.

With the above definition of democracy we see that the whole continent of Africa is not a stranger in the history of World democratization. Africa was the first center of Early civilization along the Nile River where democracy was done. Actually the whole Africa had democracy based on African cultures and values. In regard to this, Jafta quoting Pro.William Makgoba says its unreasonable to understand democracy in a western concept only because western democracy is liberal based on one culture and ignores the values of anther cultures. He further say that this western democracy came from people who have one common culture (1998:132). In support of this, Dr. Bingu Wamthalika states that there is clear evidence that Africa have common conceptual and analytical framework of participatory democracy based on African traditional and values (1995:71). Ofcourse Jafta gives eight different kind of democracies as follows: direct democracy, representative democracy, social democracy, participatory democracy, consociated democracy, liberal democracy, people’s democracy and pluralists democracy. According to Wamthalika, Africa had sophisticated democratic organizational structure in the various African Kingdoms. He further says that Historians and Archeologist have unearthed comprehensive and indisputable evidence that ancient African kingdoms had well-structured democracies (1995:75). Such kingdoms included Ghana, Songhai, Mali, Egypt, Kush, Axum, Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe and had participatory democracy. Quoting from Loyd (Africa in social Change), Wamthalika notes the following: In term of social political organization African kingdoms were ordered by a system through which the king had a council of advisors made up of chiefs who performed administrative functions such as Tax collection, settling down disputes among the people and leading the people to war (1995:75). This was the participatory for m of democratic organization where people had the right to equal opportunities.

(B). ACCOUNTABILITY
In the Old Kingdom days, ordinary men became part and parcel of everyday politics and democratization. People and leaders were accountable to each other. Accountability is the art of being responsible to other and to yourself. Mumthalika says that political democratization and accountability work hand in hand because in democracy he says people are accountable to one another. For instance, leaders to the electorate and the electorate to leaders (1995:73). To facilitate this, African culture and tradition its democratization process promoted dialogue as a channel of information transfer and disseminating. Dr. Wamthalika says that unlike the morden societies where information belongs only to the few rich and powerful men, in traditional and cultural democratization, information was accessible to all and was made available and shared equally amongst the people (1995:73).




( C ). THE FALL OF AFRICAN DEMOCRACY
The once called Dark continent with the once called primitive culture, Africa entered the period of the fall in cultural values as the once existing traditional democracy got disturbed by the western scramble, partition of Africa or the colonization of Africa as other may wish to call it. According to Wamthalika, the Western nations called Africa the Dark Continent with primitive culture because her culture was too advance for a western cultured mind to comprehend it (1995:73). This was evidenced by the great high knowledge and various scientific proofs of the artifacts discovered in the various Old Kingdom sights in Africa. There was high technology in many African kingdoms. Also Africa never depended on western economical donor Aid but had enough and surplus to give out. (Genesis 39-48). In the Colonization of Africa, western nation took control of the once existing African kingdoms. In this case African leaders lost their authority to the white colonial master. It’s with this destruction of the once existing African values that Wamthalika blames the western colonialists for the destruction of African economy, politics culture and democracy (1995:73). The clear proof of absolute African political and economical stability was seen when the whole world depended on Africa for their survival (Gen Chap 38-49). African never depended on Donor Aid but had enough and surplus to give out.

(D). AFRICAN NATIONALISM.
We earlier defined nationalism as the people’s political desire to rule themselves, to move away from the western dominion. This is the people’s political will to rule and control themselves. We need to differentiate between political freedom and economical freedom or political democracy and economical democracy. In the early 1900’s and the early 1960’s the continent of Africa moved through a swift real democratic struggle from the Cape in the south to Cairo in the North.Actually we need to understand that during this time, western colonialist destroyed the whole African economical and democratical life. Now because of the death of African economical and democratically life, African resented the white dominion. We need also to know that during this struggle, it was all about both political and economical nationalism. By definition, political freedom is the people’s desire to politically rule themselves while economical freedom is the people’s desire to rule in terms of being able to control their own economical destiny

This early political struggle, saw Kwame Nkrumah leading Ghana to her political freedom from the British, Kenneth Kaunda leading Zambia to political freedom in 964, Dr. Julius Nyerere leading Tanzania to freedom in 1963, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta leading Kenya to freedom in 1963, Marshal Samora Mashelu leading Mozambique to freedom in 1975 and Dr. Kamuzu Banda leading Malawi to political freedom in 1964 to mention but a few. It’s interesting that though African nations got political independent, they failed to attain their economical independence. Since economy plays a greater role in any democracy, African attained freedom didn’t survive because it had no strong economical foundation. They continued to rely on the western colonialist for economical sustenance.

( II) OLD TESTAMENT LAND ETHIC IN RELATION TO AFRICAN POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY.
The Land identified the nation of Israel. Ofcourse the OT and New Testament Biblical history is about the Promised Land. In Genesis Chapter 12, God Called Abraham and promised him this unknown piece of land which his descendants later inherited during the days of Joshua. The Story of Joshua is about land distribution in Canaan, the Abrahamic Promised Land. Through out the OT, God is in the process of building up the nation of Israel. A nation can’t be formed without a piece of land hence God had to give Abraham a specific piece of land. It’s on this piece of land that God was to build up a nation of Israel. Therefore land is vital, as is the backbone of any nation.But when we look into Israeli’s history we see that the land belonged to God and the people were the stewards, keeper of the land. The people were responsible to God for the better management of the land. They were the caretakers. Wright says that the relationship between the Israelites and God was sealed in the land (1992:50). Wright further says that the land was a divine gift from God, which functioned as proof of real relationship between God and the people, and it was their inheritance (1992:53). In other words, no land no Israel. As God gave them Land the Israelite, were accountable before God as regard the usage of the land.

(A). AFRICAN LAND ETHIC
Just like the OT Land issue, in Africa land plays a greater role in every aspect of people’s economical, social and political lives. The land of Africa is the people of Africa. Everything in Africa is about land because land is the backbone of the social, political and economical life of the people. Quoting Unthuli, Jafta states that to deprive Africans of their land is like depriving them of their soul (1998:141). This explains that land was God given gift entity and if it was not for the land of Africa, Africa could not have existed. If, people fight over African land they fight over the African people. This is because we cannot separate the two; the people of Africa from the land of Africa because the two are the same, are identical and are tightly attached together.

(B). IDENTITY.
Land is the number one identity of the African People. For instance, there's the land of Malawi, the land of Mozambique and the land of Kenya to mention but a few. Thus people of Africa are indetified by the land and not color. Of course it’s interesting that peoples of different colors are in Africa and they are not identified by their color but by the land of Africa.When the white colonialist came into Africa and partitioned the whole of it among themselves, they did that because they wanted land. This process was about Land and not the people. But the white colonialist didn’t know the African land ethic that people and land are identical. Thus we see that in all the history of traditional Africa, the partition of Africa was such a horrible thing ever because it divided the cultures and traditions of the African people. People were interested in land because this land had rich minerals like gold, silver, zinc copper to mention but a few. Thus Zimbabwean President as he was addressing the United Nation Land Issue on Zimbabwe, said that land is Zimbabwe and the people of Zimbabwe cannot do without their land, their forefathers’ inheritance. He said that the people of Zimbabwe would die clinging to their land (August 2000). But Thabo Mbeki the current South African President associates himself with the land, valleys, mountains, rivers and peoples of Africa (1998:31). Thus we see that even in economical and political crises, African love to identify themselves with their beloved land.

(C). OLD TESTAMENT LAND RIGHTS
As regard the land right ethics, Birch says that in contrast to the hierarchically constructed political system of the surrounding ancient world, Israel constructed a solid system that was to considerable extent, (grass roots up rather than top down). This he says that was due and valuable to every member of the community even the weakest or the poorest that removed class identification (1991:178). In this system, every member of the Israelite community had the right to land ownership. But we need also to know that slaves and aliens had no birth right over this land overship scheme in Israel. As regard the democratic extension of political and social right of the people, Birch says that in Israel, politics dealt with the manner in which communities got organized to make decision s and to utilize (distribute) power (1991:178). Quoting from Gottwald, Birch indicates the following about the social political ethics surrounding the Israelites:

The social economic relationship in Israel were egalitarian in the sense that the entire population was assured of approximately equal access to resources by means of their organization into extended families protective association of families (sometimes called clans.) and tribes, federated as an intertribal community called Israel. These groups operated in various autonomous or combined ways to provide mutual aid, external defense and a religious ideology of covenanted or treaty-linked equal. He says that the defining features of politics in Old Israel was that political functions were diffused throughout the social structure or focused in temporary ad hoc role assignment (1991:178)

This explains that that there was democracy based on the Israelites culture. We therefore need to agree that the political setting of the Israelites nation had democratic principles based on their culture. But adding on egalitarianism that Birch talks about, Mumthalika says that this is the absolute belief in equality in term of political, economical and social development of nations. This is the unleashing of combined growth and productive forces of the people toward sustained growth and development. It means again the fulfillment of political social and economic emancipation (1995:91).

(III). OLD TESTAMENT LEADERSHIP ETHIC IN RELATION
TO AFRICAN POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY.

When we look into the OT leadership ethic, its vital to understand the plan of God after the fall of man. After the fall, man was unable to do anything t achieves the required status that God gave him in the Garden of Eden. Thus now we have God entering in the covenant of grace relationship with man. Palmer Robertson (The Christ of the Covenant) says that since man became incapable of works suitable for meriting salvation, God entered into the covenant of grace with man (1980:55). This was the step God took to bring man back by His won unmerited favor. According to Robertson, God redemptive plan started soon after the fall of man the unfolding process passed through; Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon to mention but a few (1980:62). We have God fully involved in the salvation process of man.

(A). DIRECT RULE OF GOD (THEO CENTRIC RULE)
The leadership ethics of the nation of Israel is divided into two major groups, direct and indirect rule of God. Firstly in the direct rule God Himself controlled the nation of Israel. This was the continued works of grace upon the fallen man because he could not save himself but also he could not lead himself well. To redeem this crisis, God was directly involved in the everyday life of the fallen himself. This was the fully manifestation of His grace. But there are some few things we need to know about the direct rule of God in this context.

(i) Charismatic Leaders
The First part of the OT leadership ethic is characterized by the presence of Charismatic leaders. These were the people who stayed, lived, ate and spoke with God. These were the people through whom God established His rule on earth. These were the tools that God directly used to govern His people Israel. Such leaders included; Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Deborah, Jephtah, Samson and Samuel. Briefly, Abraham was the first person called from his how town of Ur to go to this unknown Promised Land. He believed God and Trusted Him. Moses was the Great Liberator whom God used to redeem the Israelites from Captivity in Egypt. He is the one who received the Mosaic Law for the people of God. Joshua was the one who led the whole military conquest of the Promised Land. Deborah was the first woman warrior and she led the Israelites to war against the Canaanites. Gideon was the one who led the Israelites to war against the Midianites. Jephtah was the one who led the Israelites to war against the Ammonites while Samson was the one who led the Israelites against the Philistines. This was the centralized administration under the leadership of God but through the leader who had direct communication with God Himself. The history of all theses charismatic leaders of Israel creates the strong foundation of the History of Israel because never was their a time when God could physically dwell in the midst of his people than during the days of the said charismatic leaders. This is one the most important part of the ancient history of Israel.

(ii) Liberation
During the days of Moses as the great prophet and the treat charismatic leader of Israel the lord did many mighty works that people comprehended (Birch 1991:128). This Exodus according to Birch was the representative of constant process of claiming and reclaiming the lost glory. But its important to know that in the plan of God, the nation of Israel was formed first and foremost by response to the deliverance the people had experienced (Birch 1991:124). Moses as leader of the liberation works of God was the agent through whom God moved. Its vital to note that Birch Says that in the Exodus Gods power didn’t operate in isolation from human agent and the role of God’s agent in liberation (Moses) was often to stand between the rebellious people and God. (1991:127). Actually this demanded obedience and faithfulness from the people

(iii). Moses the Political Activists
When we look deeper into the Moses's political activities, we see that he challenged and destroyed both the religion and political life of the Ancient Egypt and showed them that the Israel’s God was the only powerful living God. Walter Brueggeman says that Moses declared Yahweh the sovereign one that acts in his Lordly freedom and is no captive to any social perception and acts towards His own plan and purpose. This Moses he further says dismantled the pharaohic politics of oppression and exploitation by encountering it with the politics of justice and compassionate (1978:17)

(B) THE INDIRECT RULE OF GOD.
While the Israelites enjoyed the direct rule of God, the people later cried to Samuel for a king (I Sam. 8-9). The Israelites admired the structural leadership of anther nations around them who had their Kings leading them in battles. They wanted a physical leader not the unseen God, someone whom them could not see leading them in battles. They wanted a physical King. With this, we see the change in structural leadership of the nation of Israel. God allows them to have their physical king. At this time, God grace prevails as indirectly rules His people through this physical king and the prophets. Lets look at some things in the indirect rule of God in Israel.

(i). National Politics and Democracy
When the people of Israel asked for a king and God gave them Saul as their first ruler, this created the indirect political rule of God. But we see the two levels of political approach, the national and the local politics. In this national politics, Douglas Knights says that political and authority was seated in the hand of a small group of people, These were the king royal family and the royal court, high civil and military official, large land owners wealthy merchant, pries leaders. Fulfilling the prophetic voice of Samuel, Douglas Knight further say that this small powerful group of people controlled the economic well being as well as the legal and political viability of the rest of the country (1995:93). To understand this better lets look at the four political and democratic rights as follows:

(ii). Self-determination and participation
Self-determination is the prerogative and power to choose or affirm one type of political system to participate whether directly or indirectly in the on going administration of government including the enforcing of laws. This is also the exercise of political and democratic right of the people (Douglas 1978:97). Douglas further says that the mornachy became status quo and the only remaining question was succession (1978:101). But when we look into the whole morden history of Israel we have period of the violation of democratic principles mainly during the day of the division of the kingdom.

(iii). Political Power (Citizenship)
As regard citizenship and political participatory in democratic issues, Douglas urges that if by citizen ship is meant the power and right to participate fully in the political process of the state, them he says there were few members Israelis national political community (1978:102). This was in the hands of the few the high-ranking people. It need to be understood that every Israel was subject to the domino of the government but the number who had a power to any decision making process was a few percent of the royal family and the rich military and civil officials. Douglas further says that to call the Israelite political structure participatory monarch as opposed to despotic monarch may be valid so long as it is understood that those participating with the king were not the people at large nor even the landed free males but members of small upper class close to the king. 1978:102).

(iv). Protection of Citizen Rights
In many occasion people’s political rights and freedoms were not respected. The king and the upper class people, who had that political power to rule and govern, were what I could call Immune to any legal action against them. We could also say that these groups of people were above the law. Small ruling class violated Many times the people’s Universal human rights, also called natural law or rights and traditional rights. This was because this elite class of people constructed power for themselves and became legally immuned to any litigation. We see this for instance in the life of King David. He took the wife of Uriah who he himself ordered to be killed. Again the Ahab’s plan to take Naboth’s land explains the fact that common men had no legal protection from those in high offices. Now we see that God had Prophets raised up so that them be mouthpiece in rebuking such actions.

(IV). THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETIC ETHICS.
The prophetic ethics according to Birch cannot be understood apart from the social contexts in which the prophetic words were originally heard (1991:241). The prophetic office is the calling and the prophets proclaim God s word to redeem the people from the social injustices. For instance, the following were called Amos; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel and Zacheria to mention but a few. God put prophetic word on the lips and heart and they proclaimed it (Birch 1991:254). In this whole prophetic work, the focus is the word that God wants it proclaimed. It is important to note as Birch says that the prophets were observers of the world around them. Thus the observed politics of their nation, the practices of their leaders, the structures of economy and the welfare of the most vulnerable. He also says that the prophets spoke to Israel as a community, as a social reality and as a collection of individuals and finally the prophets were acutely concern for historical reality and proclaimed the prophetic word to Israel as a people who had known God in history of their own salvation experience (1991:258).

PROPHETIC VOICE IN MODERN AFRICAN POLITICS
Politics and democracy looks dark and with no hope is there is no prophetic voice. In the Old Testament as we have seen, many ordinary people suffered and were mistreated by the High positioned men because their was no prophetic voice. In our time, the main line, the liberals and the conservative disagree on the prophetic concept. The liberals believe that prophetic voice has something to do with the immediate situation while the conservative believe that prophecy has something to do with the future (Brueggeman 1978:12). Now if the church is divided how can the prophetic voice work unitedly?For the past 30 years, there has been lack of prophetic voice. Soon after independent in the late 50’s and the early 60’s, African leaders created autocratic regimes and silenced all those who came up with new way of political thinking. There was lack of prophetic voice and due to this, those in higher places became richer in the expense of the ordinary poor people. He richer got richer and the poor got poorer. Actually this has affected even the present Africa because there is blood being shade all across the continent because some few individuals are power hungry. Its in this view that the current South African President, Thabo Mbeki shares his pains to all the conflicts, violence and deaths that took place in Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Angola, Sierra Leone and Ethiopia to mention but a few (1998:35). But speaking to participants in London on the Angola Matters Issue, Teresa Santana called upon Angolan Leaders to stop the war because it was not a solution to Angola's political and economical destiny (1994:113). Unlike in Angola, there was no prophetic voice in Rwanda because Adams says that the killings of people was everywhere houses, churches, hospitals etc,(1994:37).

(V). OT POLITICAL ETHICS IN RELATION TO GOOD GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA.
When we look into this the question is, is there any OT Political Ethics that we can use to help in good governance in Africa? To answer this, we need to know that African countries have the indirect rule of God as it occurred during the days of King Soul and the rest of the OT Kings. We have put in place political leader who govern us. These leaders like the OT leaders are greedy and corrupt sometimes and have no regard for the constitution, they are there to manipulate and change it to suit the situation they are in.

But in answering the question of the Old Testament political ethic relevant for the present African political and democratic situation, their is nothing much. Actually there is nothing much admirable the Old Testament Leaders did in their own culture of course that African could use. I am forced to say this because the OT leaders and their people in many occasions disobeyed God and went their own way. Their leaders shade a great deal of innocent blood as they killed innocent people to tightened up their political ambitions. Some of them were involved in Military Coup detat mainly in the northern kingdom. Like the Africans the Israelites accommodated foreign way of life, which was not pleasing before God and them ended up worshipping foreign gods. African countries have accepted the western way of democracy as opposed to the African way of democracy that promotes culture, peace, joy and African one love. We need to know that the OT people had their own culture and disobeyed God in their own culture and it would be dangerous to apply some principles that were used by the Jews in their walk with God because though these principles may look good, they may not be applicable in African context in one way or the other.

CONCLUSION
Out of all what we have studied the only thing that we need in Africa is the prophetic voice. Africa needs a big prophetic voice than ever before. Of course some may urge that Christian church leaders are all over Africa and that we need no such a voice. But we need to know that because of sin, leaders have abandoned their calling and accommodated the spirit of compromise to the needs of political leaders. Due to this all forms of wickedness have crept into the church. It’s in this view that Carlsen says that God has given the church leaders responsibility to take the lead in denouncing corruption and misrule (2000:2). Christians have the authority because Christ is not only the head of the church but also he is the ruler of kings of the earth (Rev.1: 5) and all kings and political leaders need to be civic educated that they are to fear God and observe all the laws of God (Deut.17: 18,19). Also it’s the duty of the Christian leaders to educate those in authority that all people and nations will be answerable to God’s Holy standard as it occurred in the OT time (Sodom and Gomorrah Destruction, Genesis 13:13; Nineveh (Jona1: 2). Above all God created everything that exists in the world including any political authority (Psalms 24:1). Its only if the prophetic voice will be available that Africa will be healed from the wounds of corruptions and any forms of sinful act in the churches and political offices. It’s only the prophetic voice that is able to rebuke and condemn any sinful act. The prophetic voice has the power from God unlike the religious voice, which is a lifeless voice from a spiritually dead church organization. We don’t have to fully use the Jewish tradition and cultures in sorting African politics and democracy because God dealt with the Jews in their own culture because God is able to sort out our political and democratic problems in our own culture and setting. African culture is not inferior to any culture in the world and God need no any peoples culture to sort out other people’s problems. No any culture is a standard measure for another culture. Once again the only thing that Africa need is the prophetic voice because it is the only tool that can solve specific political problems in Africa.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam G: 1994, Rwanda, (/An Agenda for International Action), Oxfam Publication UK.
Birch B: 1991, Let justice Roll Down (OT Ethic), Westmisters/John Knox Press, Kentucky USA
Carlsen D: 2000, Muse Time (Christ &politics; Democracy & its limits), Quiver Press ,Mutare.
Hent K: 1994, Why Angola Matters, (African studies Center), James Curry, London.
Jafta LD: 1998: Religion and Democracy in South Africa (Simeins Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Vol xxiv No2.
Knight D: 1995, Political rights and Power in Monarch Israel (Semeins) Scholar Press, Atlanta.
Mbeki T: 1998, Africa, (Time has come) Mafube publishing (pty) ltd. Houghton Johannesburg.
Oxford Dict, 1994:213,Oxford University Press.
Robertson P: 1985, The Christ of the covenant Presbyterian and reformed Publishing co., New Jersey.
Scholdfield A: 1975, The Dark Kingdom, William Heinemann LTD, London, Johannesburg.
Wamthalika B: 1995: One Africa One Destiny (Toward Democracy, Good governance and Development), Sapes Books Pub, Co., Harare, Zimbabwe.
Wright C: 1992, Living as the People of God, Inter-Varsity Press, England.


1a This paper was presented in the BA.(Th) Hons seminar at the Bible Institute of South Africa in Kalk Bay in Cape Town in 2001 for the NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY(www.nwu.ac.za)