The 1970s were the decade for liberation theology. In Latin America, priests and nuns had started defying local and national authorities in order to liberate the oppressed-in this case, the poor who were under exploitive capitalist economic systems. In Africa, theologians stressed the need for Africans to be liberated from "cultural captivity," "dehumanization," and sexism (Witvliet, 99).
South African theologian Allan Boesak argued that black consciousness was an early, secular form of liberation theology that set the path for the Church to emphasize that not only are blacks human but they are also children of God (Boesak, qtd. in Ferm, 266-268). Nevertheless, as real a problem as racism is, Boesak suggested that the economic question is as vitally important in the quest for liberation: "We have to make a proper analysis of the realities of power and powerlessness" (271). In other parts of Africa, however, the struggle was not about race and justice for all. Rather, it was "against dictatorships and domination of all kinds" (Hennelly, 162). Certain theologians saw traditional African culture and religion as "essentially liberating" (163).
THE PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE
Yet if that's true-if African culture is essentially liberating-what has happened to African liberators like Mugabe, who turned into oppressors? Is there something wrong with the concept of liberation that needs to be corrected in order to avoid the power grabbing that occurs later?
I might argue that Mugabe (and, perhaps, other African strongmen) internalized the violence they used in order to liberate and it corrupted them. Theologians who have observed the course of liberation theology in Latin America have noticed a similar theme; according to one scholar, liberation theologians "are no longer offering the easy justifications of the necessity of 'counterviolence' against the 'institutionalized violence' of the political establishment," largely because of "the bloodshed associated with the movement in recent years" (Rhodes).
Echoing this, Sr. Janice recently backpedaled away from her commitment to violence as a method of liberation. "Because of what's happened in Zimbabwe, the increasing violence and how the Government is using violence against the opposition, I've had to question the whole use of violence," she says. "I'm not a total pacifist but I'm leaning towards it. And I keep saying, 'Maybe this is kind of the fruits of using violence.' What I see now happening is how governments, or people in power, can so easily use violence, you know, instill in the youth, 'This person is the enemy and they should be beaten or killed or tortured or whatever.' It is a very evil and insidious thing and it is so easy to instill it, particularly in young people, and what that must do to future generations-Zimbabwe is preparing to destroy itself, not just economically and environmentally, but its people. It is creating a generation of youth like those ones from the war who only know violence. And how you ever restore them to a normal life-I don't know."
