A political party recently announced that it would not campaign on a Sunday because it supports Christian values.
The statement was meant to inspire admiration. Instead, it raises an uncomfortable question:
Is this a value, or is it an excuse?
The distinction matters because politics is overflowing with people who know how to speak the language of principle while practising the art of convenience.
Values are easy when they cost nothing.
Anyone can claim to believe in honesty when telling the truth is painless. Anyone can claim to believe in service when service requires little effort. Anyone can claim to be guided by faith when faith never demands sacrifice.
The true test of a value is whether it survives inconvenience.
That is why the image of a political party proudly declaring that it will not be present at registration points on a Sunday is so fascinating. Registration weekends are not ordinary weekends. They are among the most important moments in the democratic calendar. They are the few opportunities citizens have to ensure they can participate in deciding the future of their communities.
Politics, after all, is not something that exists only in council chambers and legislatures. Politics is helping a pensioner find the correct registration station. Politics is assisting a first-time voter who has never engaged with the electoral process. Politics is standing in the cold, the heat, the rain, and the dust because democracy requires participation.
To voluntarily remove yourself from that process is a significant choice.
The party in question frames this choice as a commitment to Christian values. At face value, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Religious convictions have shaped societies, inspired great acts of charity, and provided moral foundations for millions of people. The problem is not faith.
The problem is selective faith.
Because Christianity has never really been about withdrawal from society.
The Jesus presented in the Gospels did not retreat from public life. He walked among ordinary people. He taught in public spaces. He engaged with political authorities, religious leaders, tax collectors, fishermen, prostitutes, and outcasts. Whether one believes in Him or not, it is difficult to argue that His example was one of disengagement.
Christianity’s central message is not isolation.
It is presence.
It is showing up.
It is serving.
It is entering difficult spaces rather than avoiding them.
This is why the argument becomes complicated.
If a political party genuinely believes no political activity should occur on a Sunday, then consistency demands more than avoiding registration points. It would require abandoning Sunday fundraising. It would require avoiding Sunday strategy meetings. It would require ending Sunday political social media campaigns. It would require refusing Sunday interviews, press statements, and election messaging.
In other words, the principle would need to be universal.
Otherwise, it begins to resemble something else entirely.
Convenience disguised as conviction.
This is not a uniquely South African problem.
Throughout history, people have used moral language to justify practical decisions. Sometimes it is done consciously. Sometimes it is not. Human beings are remarkably skilled at convincing themselves that what is easiest is also what is right.
The language of values provides excellent cover.
After all, who wants to criticise faith?
Who wants to be seen attacking religion?
The moment a political decision is wrapped in spiritual language, criticism becomes difficult because opponents risk appearing hostile to the belief itself rather than the decision being made.
Yet values must still withstand scrutiny.
In fact, genuine values should welcome scrutiny.
If a principle cannot survive questioning, it is probably not a principle at all.
South Africa faces enormous challenges. Unemployment remains devastatingly high. Municipal collapse is increasingly common. Crime continues to shape daily life. Infrastructure is deteriorating across large parts of the country. Voter participation has declined as citizens lose faith in institutions and political parties alike.
Against this backdrop, one would expect political organisations to maximise every opportunity to engage voters.
Not minimise them.
This does not mean faith should be abandoned in politics. Quite the opposite.
The best values should make politicians more present, not less. More engaged, not less. More willing to serve, not less.
A value that removes you from people is a strange value for a politician to embrace.
Ultimately, the question is not whether a party has the right to stay away from registration points on a Sunday. Of course it does.
The real question is whether the decision reflects a costly principle or a convenient justification.
Because values and excuses often look identical from a distance.
The difference only becomes visible when there is something to lose.
A value says, “I will accept the consequences because I believe this is right.”
An excuse says, “I have found a noble reason to avoid something difficult.”
The challenge for every politician, every party, and every citizen is to know which one they are looking at.
And perhaps more importantly, which one they are practising.
Elias Redwyn 
Leave a comment