How US conservatives use religious outreach to shape African policy
On 26 and 27 June, the Bintumani International Conference Centre in Freetown
On the surface, it was a celebration of unity. Beneath it, though, lay a strategic campaign by a US-based religious organisation to embed a specific brand of conservative American theology into African cultural narratives. The soft language of empowerment masked an ideological demand.
This isn't new. In 2024, LDS held
Preaching power through local mouthpieces
What made the Freetown event especially effective was its reliance on local voices to legitimise its message. From the opening to to the closing prayer, the conference amplified a Mormon worldview through African public figures
On day 1, LDS Elder Kenneth Pambu opened with inclusive-sounding language: 'Every child deserves to grow up in a safe and caring home.' But his definition of the ideal family quickly narrowed: a heterosexual, nuclear unit rooted in divine order, guided by strict gender roles.
Later, a speaker warned, 'The digital world is teaching our children values we do not agree with.' The message was clear. Modernity equals danger. Tradition, as defined by the Mormons, equals safety.
Catholic Archbishop Edward Tamba Charles echoed rhetoric from the 2019 Ghana conference, warning of a curriculum that 'sexualises' students and condemning foreign aid tied to LGBTQ rights. The crowd cheered.
An Islamic leader added, 'Family is a combination between a male and a female. There is no he, she or she-he.' Cloaked in cultural pride, this rhetoric erased all Sierra Leoneans outside the sexual or gender binary.
It's a recurring pattern. One group of wealthy white outsiders empowers local conservatives to criticise another group of white outsiders for allegedly corrupting African values. The irony is met not with resistance but with applause.
First lady Fatima Maada Bio, a popular figure praised for her advocacy for women and girls, framed the event as a national imperative. 'This partnership is not just about religion. It's about restoring hope, dignity and values.' Her announcement of a new safe house for survivors of gender-based violence, an LDS–first lady collaboration, was met with thunderous applause.
Such a resource is vital. Yet its framing raised questions. Will women have to accept Mormon doctrine to access lifesaving services? Will only certain women — married, respectable, God-fearing — be welcomed?
A digital Trojan horse
The LDS church is strategic in Africa. It does not lead with doctrine. It leads with scholarships, media, partnerships and food drives. From glossy brochures to high-definition testimonials, it appears tech-savvy and community-minded.
But beneath the polish is a clear ideology. Be faithful, obedient, heterosexual, traditional. Reject feminism. Reject LGBTQ rights. Reject sex education and intellectual inquiry. Focus on your family and stay quiet about policy shifts and corruption.
The LDS church doesn't attack activism outright. It elevates modesty, family and tradition as cultural revival. To question this is framed as rejecting your roots.
This is not overt coercion. It is something more insidious — a foreign ideology dressed in local attire. An imported theology, marketed as a return to African values.
The conference didn't just celebrate families. It defined them. And, in doing so, it excluded structures and identities that don't fit LDS or conservative norms.
The real cost of moral policing
Let's be clear. This is not an argument against faith. Religion remains a cornerstone of African life. It can uplift, protect and unify. But when faith becomes a vessel for narrow definitions of womanhood, family and morality, it ceases to be spiritual. It becomes political. And when it defines who is worthy of protection, who is moral and who is 'truly African', it becomes a neocolonial tool of division.
This should concern all of us. The danger of what we saw at the Freetown conference lies not only in what's said but in what's omitted: the single mother, the blended family, the outspoken or non-conformist child. When these realities are erased, the LDS church isn't just shaping culture. It is scripting the future.
Who suffers when the future being built in our name doesn't reflect us at all?
The next 'strengthening families' conference is scheduled for Liberia in June 2026. If Freetown was any indication, our Liberian colleagues must
luk insai dis tin ya so
(examine something closely). Ask who is speaking to us. Who is speaking for us? And what harm will be caused by what is left unsaid?
Mina Bilkis is a feminist storyteller and digital rights researcher in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Famia Nkansa is a writer, editor and communications consultant.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
4 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The mask of apartheid
The new apartheid is decentralised, encrypted in algorithms, and cloaked in the language of economic rationality and legal formalism and it's not only in South Africa. Photo: File Despite South Africa's transition to democracy in 1994, apartheid has quietly entrenched itself within the private sphere. While the responsibility of managing the state lies in public hands, real power increasingly resides in private institutions and markets. Today, privilege is governed by price. The market now sets the boundaries of opportunity. Financial barriers have replaced legal ones as instruments of exclusion. Something as simple as an application form is often accompanied by a fee — a form of economic regulation. These financial mechanisms now perform the same function once carried out by explicitly racist laws. Surcharges, income thresholds, qualification criteria and premium pricing have become the new tools of modern segregation. Apartheid persists not just in memory, but in the cost of a car, a house, a job, a university placement, a medical aid scheme, an insurance policy, or a loan. Where the state once enforced exclusion through law, private actors now enforce it through economics. Policing racial statutes was costly — politically, morally and financially. Financial exclusion, by contrast, appears neutral and carries no overt moral burden. By replacing legal barriers with economic ones, segregation has shifted from being a public burden to a private one, shielded from constitutional scrutiny and public accountability. Unlike the centrally governed apartheid state, this new system of exclusion is maintained by a decentralised network of private actors. Although many apartheid-era laws were abolished after 1994, apartheid endures in South Africa's common law — particularly in the law of contract and property — which continue to structure economic relations and access to resources. Law is not merely a matter of statute; it is embedded in legal practice, judicial culture and precedent. Apartheid, therefore, survives not only in what the law says, but in how the law is applied. It lives outside the statutory framework — in the everyday transactions that define who belongs, who benefits and who is left out. This entrenchment of exclusion has also been accelerated by digital technologies. The rise of surveillance systems and racial categorisation tools — foundational pillars of the apartheid state — has been replicated through data-driven infrastructures. Unlike apartheid-era mechanisms, these technologies exist largely beyond South Africa's control. Their global proliferation coincided with the country's transition to democracy but ultimately complicated that transition. Technological segregation now operates through algorithms — mechanisms that appear neutral but function with embedded bias. These algorithms reshape the public sphere, determine access to essential services such as credit, healthcare, education and employment, and quietly reproduce systems of exclusion by amplifying existing inequalities. For instance, biased data sets and opaque decision-making processes can disproportionately deny marginalised groups access to loans, jobs or even housing. As the economy became increasingly digitised and financialised, power shifted further away from the democratic state toward international tech and financial corporations that control these platforms and infrastructures. These corporations operate with limited accountability, often beyond the reach of national regulatory frameworks, further entrenching inequality. In this way, apartheid has been encrypted into a new, digitised form — a system where exclusion is maintained not by explicit laws, but through coded algorithms and data-driven governance that perpetuate racial and economic divides. Since 1994, apartheid has become fractalised. Once visible on grand, institutional scales, its logic now manifests in smaller, more diffuse forms. What was once a centralised system of segregation is now scattered across everyday life — in housing, education, employment and finance. This fractalisation makes apartheid easier to survive, but harder to see. Its invisibility renders it more difficult to confront, allowing structural inequality to persist under the guise of normalcy. The system of apartheid and exclusion is not confined to South Africa's borders. In occupied Palestine, similar structures of racial and economic segregation are enforced through a combination of state power and private interests. Here, apartheid is maintained not only through physical barriers like walls and checkpoints but also through economic control, land confiscation, and pervasive surveillance technologies, many developed and sold by global corporations. This entanglement of public authority and private capital in Palestine echoes South Africa's experience, highlighting how modern apartheid adapts across contexts. It reveals a transnational pattern in which racial domination is sustained through intertwined legal, economic, and technological systems, perpetuating dispossession and inequality on a global scale. Legally, the persistence of apartheid in its modern, privatised form reflects deep continuities in South Africa's legal system. While apartheid-era statutes were formally repealed, the foundational principles embedded in common law — particularly in property, contract, and corporate law — continue to structure economic and social relations in ways that reproduce racialised inequality. These legal doctrines were developed to protect wealth, land, and capital accumulation for a privileged few and remain largely unchallenged in courts today. Moreover, judicial culture and precedent frequently uphold these doctrines under the guise of neutrality and formal equality, masking the structural biases they perpetuate. Without a fundamental transformation of the legal order, beyond mere statutory reform, to interrogate and dismantle the inherited values and practices that sustain exclusion, the law risks becoming a silent enabler of privatised apartheid rather than an instrument of justice and redress. Apartheid has not ended; it has evolved and multiplied its forms. No longer enforced solely through overt laws and state apparatus, it now thrives in the interstices of market mechanisms, digital technologies and legal frameworks that appear neutral but remain deeply exclusionary. Recognising these continuities and transformations is essential if we are to confront and dismantle the systemic inequalities that persist in South Africa and beyond. Only through holistic efforts that address economic structures, technological governance, and the very foundations of our legal system can we hope to realise the democratic promise of equality and justice at home and in solidarity with those, like Palestinians. Sõzarn Barday is a writer and attorney based in South Africa and has a particular interest in human rights within the Middle East. Opinions shared represent her individual perspective.
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Exploring BRICS' role in addressing global challenges and fostering dialogue
The Valdai Discussion Club in partnership with the South African Institute of International Affairs hosts the 3rd Russian-African Conference in Pretoria titled: 'Realpolitik in a Divided World: Rethinking Russia-South Africa Ties in a Global and African Context'. Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers The role of BRICS in the world has been hailed as a positive force driving dialogue and creating strategic conditions for development, rather than opposing any particular nation, including the US. This message was delivered at the Russia-Africa conference, co-hosted by the Valdai Discussion Club and the South African Institute of International Affairs in Pretoria. The conference, titled 'Realpolitik Responses in a Fractured World: Rethinking Russia-South Africa Ties in Global and African Context', brought together top government officials and academics to share their perspectives on 'G20 and BRICS: Assessing Strategic Roles in an Evolving Global Order'. Dmitry Birichevsky, director of the Department of Economic Cooperation at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noted that the BRICS leadership cycle in the G20 has coincided with a strengthening of its economic positions. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ 'The mounting influence of BRICS has asserted itself as a centre for growth, innovation and one of the main pillars of a new and more just world order,' he said. He added that BRICS' principles of consensus, equality, and mutual consideration of each other's interests resonate with the growing number of countries in the Global South. Key issues on the BRICS agenda include making economic governance more democratic and bridging the digital and ecological divide between the Global North and the Global South. Birichevsky reiterated Russia's support for the South African presidency, saying it has predictably placed G20 emphasis on the African agenda amid the alarming development in the global economy. Philani Mthembu, executive director of the Institute for Global Dialogue, noted that the recent presidencies of BRICS and G20 have coincided with a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, which has heightened the focus on these forums. He stressed that the low level of participation or absence of the US should not be the only thing on their radar. 'The participation of the US will not make or break South Africa's G20 presidency. The US must be seen in a broader context where the US is pursuing what it views as America first,' he said. Mthembu added that BRICS should aim to reform international institutions from within while also applying external pressure. Elena Maslova, associate professor at MGIMO University's Department of Integration Studies, recommended that BRICS delve into issues such as climate change. Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers Elena Maslova, associate professor at MGIMO University's Department of Integration Studies, suggested that BRICS should explore topics such as climate change, highlighting the declaration on climate finance as a significant step forward. 'BRICS is gradually becoming a key platform for climate dialogue as well. BRICS should strive to create its single space for climate finance implementation to make it possible to reduce emissions,' she said. Maslova emphasised that BRICS is not a confrontational tool, but rather a valuable platform for tackling global challenges. Nourhan ElSheikh, professor of International Relations at Cairo University, stated that the Global South's influence has surged over the past decade, largely due to BRICS and G20, which are driving forces behind the emerging new world order. 'The Global South matters a lot not only for competition among colonial powers but also as a global player in international politics,' she said. ElSheikh remarked that the Global South has matured to the point where it can identify its own interests, rather than automatically aligning with the US, which is still trying to maintain its global dominance. 'Now we have the Global South saying 'no' and that this is not in our favour or interest and we have the right to choose our way,' she said. Cape Times
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Reporting from the West: A return to reason?
The tide is slowly turning on uncritical pro-West reporting on issues such as Russia's war on Ukraine (above) or Israel's genocide in Gaza. Photo: Bulent Kilic/AFP In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an already shrill pro-Western network in South Africa spanning NGOs, academia, and sections of the media took on a hysterical tone. This became frenzied when South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice. Conspiracy theories — such as the claim that Iran bribed the ANC to bring the case — were circulated as fact, and people offering rational and evidence-based critiques of the often propagandistically pro-West network were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, radical economic transformation types or patsies for Russia, China or Hamas. A number of people were slandered in what became a witch-hunt. In this environment, disinformation — a very real issue — was no longer a matter of truth or falsehood: it became a label selectively wielded to discredit critique of the West. Disinformation has never been the exclusive domain of Russia or China. The United States has a long history of covert influence, regime change and strategic propaganda — from Latin America to Africa, the Middle East and beyond. The 'weapons of mass destruction' and ' Yet for some years influential actors in parts of the media, NGO and academic establishment in South Africa echoed Western narratives without scrutiny, treating unevidenced US claims as fact and dismissing dissenting voices as dupes or foreign proxies. On the media front, the Daily Maverick, under Branko Brkic, led the charge. In the NGO world, it was the Brenthurst Foundation under Greg Mills. And in the academy, the leading figure was Herman Wasserman, who, in an article co-authored with Dani Madrid-Morales and Saifuddin Ahmed, declared critical attitudes toward Nato to be the result of 'strategic disinformation narratives' crafted by Russia. Other significant players included BizNews, amaBhungane, the Institute for Race Relations and figures such as RW Johnson, Tony Leon, Franz Cronje and Helen Zille, among others. The effect of this hysteria, triangulated between the media, NGOs and the academy, was to delegitimise critical views and narrow the space for public debate. But the tide is turning. There is now a growing recognition that some of the loudest voices on the South African political and media landscape have, for years, been uncritically echoing the ideological and geopolitical priorities of Western powers. The legitimacy of this behaviour is now being challenged, and with that challenge comes the possibility of a more independent, democratic and principled public debate. The Brenthurst Foundation, once the most aggressive of the think tanks pushing a propagandistically pro-West line, has closed its doors in circumstances that remain opaque. The Daily Maverick, under new editor Jillian Green, no longer maintains the same hard pro-West line. It now includes a broader range of perspectives, including regular critiques of Israel. The publication's credibility took a serious battering in the final years of Brkic's editorship, but it is now in the midst of a clear and welcome restoration. One of the clearest signs of this shift is a recent video commentary published by leading South African journalist Redi Tlhabi in the Daily Maverick itself. Tlhabi delivered a scathing rebuke of how sections of the South African media have treated statements and threats by fringe American politicians as if they were major diplomatic developments. She singled out coverage of two proposed US House Bills targeting South Africa over its stance on Gaza. One had a single sponsor; the other had five — all Republicans — with no bipartisan support, no Senate version and no advancement to committee stage. 'You can't pass a law based on the signatures of five people out of a Congress of 535,' she said. Tlhabi noted that the media manufactured hysteria over 'non-issues' in US-South Africa relations, while failing to scrutinise the political identities, funding sources and actual legislative relevance of the individuals involved. One of those individuals was Representative Ronny Jackson, a far-right Republican from Texas closely aligned with US President Donald Trump. Jackson voted against certifying former president Joe Biden's election, and received more than $125,000 in funding from pro-Israel lobbying interests, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Tlhabi pointed to this as a clear example of how US and Israeli-aligned networks effectively use minor figures in the US and gullible journalists abroad to shift public discourse. 'A lot of money goes back and forth as people try to capture public perception,' she said, naming think tanks such as the Hudson Institute and its relationship with local political actors, as players in a coordinated effort to reshape public debate in South Africa. 'We [the media] must not become players in these political games and machinations,' she warned. 'We must discern and analyse and listen to a plurality of voices.' That this critique appeared in the Daily Maverick is significant. It implicitly marks a rupture with the publication's previous editorial line. It signals a break from a moment in which serious questions about the conduct of Western powers, and about elite alignments in South Africa, were reflexively cast as Russian propaganda, or as a result of machinations by China, Iran or Hamas. It is fascinating to see how a line of critique that until recently was aggressively dismissed as conspiracy theory or 'disinformation' has now been articulated in the mainstream media by one of our most respected journalists. It's often said that Gandhi once remarked, 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.' The quote is misattributed. It actually comes from the American labour lawyer Nicholas Klein, who told a room of union members in 1918: 'First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.' In reality, there isn't always a monument. Sometimes an idea or a position slowly becomes common sense. This is exactly what we are now seeing with the quiet return of reason to South Africa's public sphere. A once-hysterical conversation is giving way — slowly, inconsistently, but discernibly — to a more grounded one. If we are serious about defending truth and democracy, we need to be consistent. We must subject all global powers to the same level of critical scrutiny. That means acknowledging the ideological work done by US-funded think tanks, media partnerships and academic exchanges. It means recognising that disinformation is a global problem — and that when it comes from the West it is often cloaked in the language of freedom, democracy and human rights. A mature public discourse must be able to hold this complexity without collapsing into paranoia or propaganda. It is both possible and necessary to hold multiple critiques at once. One can oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine without parroting Nato or Western talking points. One can denounce Iranian authoritarianism while still rejecting US and Israeli propaganda. This is what a genuinely democratic and independent political culture looks like. Tlhabi and the Daily Maverick are to be commended for taking an important step forward in the restoration of the credibility of our public sphere after the years of uncritical pro-West hysteria. This advance will also be well served by a frank appraisal of the routine recourse to conspiracy theory in BizNews, which continues to poison our public sphere. Dr Imraan Buccus is senior research associate at ASRi and the University of the Free State.
