Interview with the Rt. Rev. Dr David Zac Niringiye

Debating pluralism – perspective of a Ugandan bishop

Tags: Uganda , Promoting Pluralism
Additional tags: Dr David Zac Niringiye , Pluralism , Religion , Uganda

The Rt. Rev. Dr David Zac Niringiye, bishop of All Saints Cathedral in Kampala, talks to Ute Seela about diversity and common ground in Uganda

 

The Pluralism Knowledge Programme serves, among others, as a platform to discuss diverging experiences of and views on diversity and pluralism. The following conversation can be found in full length at the openDemocracy online forum ‘Religion, Gender and Politics’.

Bishop Niringiye, you have recently spoken at the conference “ Pluralism: the lived realities of managing diversity in Uganda”. Can you explain briefly how you understand pluralism?

 

“I would like to distinguish ‘plurality’ and ‘pluralism’. Both terms are derived from the word ‘plural’, meaning ‘many’ or ‘diversity’. It has to do with identity, and its reflections in behaviour, lifestyle and expressions. While ‘plurality’ is a fact of life – we are different, be it as tribes or followers of different religions - pluralism is a doctrine. Pluralism is about the appreciation of the difference without the acknowledgement that there are common norms. In Western culture this especially expresses itself in the whole idea of sexuality. Pluralism allows people to express their difference – no matter what.”

 

You are saying ‘pluralism is freedom of choice without boundaries’. However, in my country, individual freedoms are not absolute. For instance, freedom of expression is limited by the obligation not to incite violence.

 

“This definition of pluralism is not my own. The roots of the concept need to be sought in the 16th and 17th century European Enlightenment period, in the era of Descartes and Nietzsche. In the thinking of Descartes everything is derived from ´who I am´. He said ‘ I think, therefore I am’. All you are, your identity, is within you, it is a matter of choice. What I disagree with is this understanding of ´what we are´. I think the reason why Europe cannot cope with its Muslims is because the pluralism based on the individual has become a dogma. It only works as long as societies are rather homogenous. Europe has big troubles applying the same pluralism to the choice of women (be it an individual choice or a collective norm) to wear the veil.”

 

You introduced an alternative concept: celebrating plurality. How does this concept differ from pluralism?

 

“Let me first turn to what I consider the other ´extreme´: tribalism. Tribalism is the notion that ´what we know, what we believe, becomes the standard´. And the critical question here is ‘who is the we’. It has to do with our identity, with both fact and belief. But it need not necessarily be blood relations. We could also talk of a tribalism of religion or a tribalism of economics. The trend one can observe is that when people of diverse tribes live together but cannot agree on common norms, they separate the entities.

 

We have a history of tribalism in Uganda. Ugandan politics, how Ugandan political parties work, is through the identification of a particular group in which they can exercise the politics of patronage. But tribalism is not an African phenomenon. The very idea of the nation state, as it has emerged in Europe, is a construction that is build on tribalism. Most European states consist of one homogeneous tribe. Those few who do not, are federal states that allow differing degrees of autonomy to the different tribes, and thereby enable separation.

 

Silently, separation is also a proposal in our country. It is this contrast of tribalism and pluralism that I want to point out. In a tribalist system we think that our norms, behaviours and standards must be those of everyone else. In pluralism, there are no norms, pluralism does not distinguish between ´right´ and ´wrong´. The point I am trying to make is that we need to celebrate our plurality. We must accept plurality as fact and as gift. But in order to celebrate we need to dance to the same tune. The challenge we face is identifying the common ground, our shared values, or shared identity.”

 

Maybe the question is ‘who defines the boundaries?’ Are they a given or do they belong to the territory of ideology, of ideas, which a society needs to debate?

 

“Boundaries are certainly not a given, it is the encounter that matters, the meeting of the differences. Only then can we find the common ground. And when we have found it, we must realise that the tune is not owned by anyone. We need to think about institutions that promote encounter and relationship, legal processes that seek to create space so that everything thrives because there are common norms.”