UBUNTU AND THE ROLE OF THE STATE

How might Ubuntu account for a good society?

By Dr Motsamai Molefe

Ubuntu is an African value system that offers its own conception of good by specifying the standard of what is deemed excellent, virtuous or permissible. Typically, Ubuntu is explained in terms of the aphorism ‘a person is a person through other persons’. There are at least two ways we can approach the idea of a ‘good society’. One way might emphasise the duties citizens have towards the comity. Another way may be to focus on the duties the state has towards citizens. We experience our lives under the influence of the state and its social institutions, which can improve or deteriorate the conditions of our existence. I define a ‘good society’ in terms of the duties the state has towards its citizens. The essence of a good society pivots on the overall social conditions that the state ought to create and sustain for human existence to be possible and meaningful.

To construct an Ubuntu-based vision of a good society, I divide this article into two sections. I begin by explaining Ubuntu. I will identify the two components of Ubuntu – human dignity, and human excellence. Secondly, I will explain the role of the state in relation to these two components of Ubuntu. Ubuntu defines a good society as one in which the state creates conditions to protect a person’s status of dignity and it equally provides empowering conditions for individuals to flourish in society.

Ubuntu as a value system

Scholars explain Ubuntu by appealing to the aphorism ‘a person is a person through other persons’. The word person occurs three times in the aphorism. To make my case, I will limit my analysis to the first two instances of it – ‘a person is a person’. The first instance of ‘a person’ refers to the ordinary use of the word, which simply refers to a human being. We might interpret the first instance of ‘a person’ qua humanity to imply the primacy of humanity in the moral domain. Ubuntu offers us at least two ways to recognise the primacy of humanity. Firstly, Ubuntu embodies a human-centred moral system. In a human-centred approach, the source and goal of morality essentially involve securing the human good. Steven Biko’s (1978) comment best explains the human-centred approaches typical of Ubuntu, when he opines –

One of the most fundamental aspects of our culture is the importance we attach to (hu)man beings. Ours has always been a (hu)man-centred society. We believe in the inherent goodness of (hu) man(ity). We enjoy (hu)man for himself … Hence in all we do we always place (hu)man first.

Ubuntu recognises the importance of humanity and equally prioritises it over other elements in nature. The priority of human beings does not imply that God and the natural community have entirely no place in the moral domain. Far from it, the point is that morality is the drama that plays itself out in the human domain. The divine will and environmental interests are intrinsically connected with human conduct and good.

Secondly, the first phrase ‘a person’ captures the idea hinted at by Biko when he talks of African cultures believing in the ‘inherent goodness of humanity’. The idea of inherent goodness denotes human dignity. ‘Human dignity’ denotes the inherent and superlative worth associated with the fact of being human. The notion of ‘inherent’ denotes that the value of a human being derives entirely from their nature. That is, so long as someone is human, they have intrinsic worth that is theirs entirely because of their human status. The notion of ‘superlative’ indicates that it is the highest value possible of its kind. That is, in the natural world - the vegetal and animal kingdom – humanity has the highest value. It is because human beings have this dignity, that we owe them the utmost respect.

Ubuntu ethics focuses on human persons. Firstly, it explains the foundation of morality in terms of human beings – morality derives from and about the human good. Secondly, Ubuntu is an ethics of dignity. It espouses the view that every human being is a bearer of inherent worth deserving of equal recognition and utmost respect. Ubuntu requires us to see persons for what they truly are, beings of dignity, and we ought to treat them as such.

The second phrase in the aphorism ‘a person is a person’ refers to the goal of morality. Ubuntu requires a human being, a person, as the moral agent, to become a person. No tautology is intended here since the second instance of the word ‘person’ is normative; referring to a good human being. According to Ubuntu, a good human being is one that achieves virtue i.e., a human agent that develops a good or virtuous character. When a human being actually achieves personhood, we say they have ubuntu. The goal of a person (a human being) is to become a person (to have ubuntu). To have ubuntu means to have a good character. Tutu (1999) captures the goal of Ubuntu in this fashion –

When we want to give high praise to someone we say, “Yu, u nobuntu”; “Hey, so-and-so has ubuntu.” Then you are generous, you are hospitable, you are friendly and caring and compassionate. You share what you have.

In summary, Ubuntu ethics is about a human being (a person), as a bearer of inherent dignity, becoming a person (achieving ubuntu). To have ubuntu means to have a character that exudes virtues like generosity, kindness, friendliness, and so on.

We can now reflect on the role of the state in light of this rough account of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu and the State

Ubuntu ethics has two crucial components –human dignity and human excellence. We can now proceed to define the role of a state, or a good society, in terms of human dignity and human