The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

It is necessary to respond to President Jacob Zuma's call for a debate on South Africa's "national moral code". The idea is problematic because inherent in it are a series of deeply undemocratic assumptions which run contrary to the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

In first mooting the idea, the President was quoted as saying: "We need this conversation that must help us reach a common understanding as South Africans" and that "we need to create a platform where there is no community that does not respect another". Later, before the National House of Traditional Leaders, President Zuma expanded on his intentions, saying, "Each one of us must be respected. That's what our Constitution says", and that his proposal was "...about nation-building. It is about redefining ourselves. Who are we? What are our values?" He ended by saying, "No-one has a right, therefore, to use his or her own [culture] to judge others. It's unconstitutional if you do so."

While the idea of the President of South Africa leading a debate on the morality of a nation facing many serious social challenges - from violent crime to racism to the scourge of HIV/AIDS - may seem harmless, even desirable to some, it is in fact a violation of the constitutional principle of freedom of expression to declare that "no-one has a right" to hold certain opinions on a particular subject - including the religious, lifestyle, or cultural practices of others.

The Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to "judge" anyone else. The merits and credibility of such an opinion are, of course, subject to debate. The Constitution does not require that everyone take seriously the views of others. And, in the same way that one person can judge another, so any person is free to contest that opinion. But the right to express that opinion is non-negotiable.

What does the President mean when he says this is a chance to "redefine ourselves". Redefine ourselves how? According to whose values?

The idea of a government-led debate to define a "national moral code" is borne of a nationalist impulse within the ANC: the desire to impose uniformity on the citizenry. It is profoundly undemocratic for a government to attempt to shape and adjust the private morality and opinions of private citizens; and, stripped of the politically-correct language in which it is couched, this so-called debate is little more than a crude attempt at social re-engineering.

There is an important principle which underpins the DA's position on this issue: the role that the state plays in the private lives of the citizens over which it governs. It should, in our opinion, play no role at all. And nowhere is that principle more pertinent than with regards to morals. The state has no place deciding morals or interfering in the private affairs of citizens. There is more than enough private space in South Africa's democracy to allow individuals and institutions of civil society endless opportunity to discuss and debate the question of "who we are", and that line - between the public and the private - should be jealously guarded in a free and democratic society.

One cannot help but think that this entire proposal was generated by the President's own displeasure at having been so vehemently criticised for his own private indiscretions. Having conflated his culture (which no one took issue with) with public reaction to the contradictions between his public positioning and his private behavior, Mr Zuma now seeks to use the state to intervene and shape the attitudes, values, morals and behaviour of the South African people.

The Democratic Alliance stands strongly opposed to this.