On the record: where the political parties stand on State regulation of religion

With the Local Government Elections on 4 November 2026, FOR SA asked each political partyrepresented in the National Assembly where it stands on State regulation of religion. This post setsout what the parties told us, what some have said publicly elsewhere, who has not yet responded,and whose position remains unclear.

FOR SA is a non-partisan organisation. We do not recommend how anyone should vote, andnothing in this post should be read as doing so. We aim to put the parties’ own words in front ofyou so that you can read and consider them for yourself.

What we asked

On 9 October 2026, FOR SA wrote to each political party represented in the National Assembly.

The letter, which was identical for every party, asked for a written position, suitable for publication,on the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 process. It enclosed a schedule of questions.

The central question was whether a party supports State regulation of religion in any form,including a statutory council, a registration scheme or a licensing scheme administered wholly orpartly by religious-sector representatives. We defined our terms. “Self-regulation” meant standardsthat religious communities adopt, own and administer themselves, not established, funded orenforced by the State or a statutory body, and which anyone is free to leave without legal penalty.

“State regulation of religion” meant any such system that is established, mandated, supervised,funded or enforced by the State or a statutory body, even if religious leaders run it and even if it iscalled self-regulation.

Eleven further questions tested what each answer means in practice, including whether a partywould support legislation later, once a voluntary code exists, and whether it considers a statutorycouncil led by religious leaders to be State regulation or self-regulation.

Matrix: State regulation of religion and legislation (as of 26 October 2026)

The matrix below scores each party on one question only: whether, according to the statements weconsidered, the party opposes or supports State regulation of religion, including legislation or alegislative framework for it. It does not score support for religious freedom generally.

• A tick (✔) means the party stated in terms, in a response or a verified public statement, that itopposes State regulation of religion and does not support legislation or a legislative frameworkfor it.
• A cross (✘) means the party stated in terms that it supports legislation or a legislativeframework regulating religion.
• A question mark (?) means anything else: no response, a general statement without detail, astatement that supports some form of regulation but is unclear about legislation, or an answerthat is qualified or ambiguous.

A question mark is not a finding that a party supports State regulation. A tick records what a partysaid. It is not an endorsement or a prediction of how the party will act in the future. The matrix shows, for each party, whether the score comes from a response to our letter or from a prior publicstatement made independently of our questions.

We have sent each party a copy of this op-ed and invited them to check it and provide correctionsor further clarify their position if necessary.

Who has answered

Seven parties responded in writing to our letter: the ACDP, ActionSA, ATM, BOSA, DA, FF Plusand UDM. The ANC did not respond to our letter. Instead, we have recorded what the party said ina media statement it issued on 13 October 2026. The EFF, IFP, MK and UAT have indicated thatthey intend to respond, and we will incorporate their statements once received. We have receivedno response from Al Jama-ah, GOOD, NCC, PA, PAC or Rise Mzansi yet (as of 26 October 2026).For these parties, we record only that fact. We draw no conclusion from this, and we would gladlyreceive further responses

What the parties said about legislation

Six of the seven parties that responded answered our legislation question directly. The ACDP,ActionSA, ATM, DA, FF Plus and UDM each answered “no” when asked whether they support anyoutcome of the Section 22 process that is given legal force through legislation.

Three of those answers carry qualifications that readers should see in full. The DA said it “opposeslegislation establishing compulsory religious oversight councils, licensing requirements, mandatorycodes of conduct or sanctions that restrict the freedom to practice religion”. It added that it “wouldassess any future legislation against the Constitution but would oppose legislation that makesparticipation in a religious regulatory framework compulsory”. The ATM said its position “does notprevent Parliament from enacting or enforcing laws of general application” to address criminaloffences, fraud, abuse and violations of constitutional rights.

ActionSA also answered “no” to legislation that creates an oversight council, requires registration or licensing, or gives legal force to a code of conduct or sanctions regime. It said the priority must remain enforcing existing laws. BOSA rejects the idea that the state should regulate religion as wellas the CRL Rights Commission’s proposal to regulate religious organisations. It says that the answer to fraud and abuse is “to enforce existing laws against fraud and abuse, not to place religion under state control”. It does not refer to legislation or a legislative framework in terms, but says that where government introduces laws that regulate what may be said or preached from the pulpit, or that limit how people practise their faith, “we should be cautious about where that leads”.

The ANC’s statement says it has neither called for nor advocated State control of churches, and that churches and religious institutions should be free to “govern and regulate their own affairs”within the Constitution. It does not say explicitly whether the ANC would support or oppose legislation of the kind described in our letter. In our press release of 15 October 2026, we welcomed the ANC’s statement and indicated that we understand the ANC’s position to mean that religious communities must be free to govern themselves, and that the ANC does not support legislation that would place them under a statutory regulatory body.

State regulation or self-regulation: where the line falls

We asked whether a council led by religious leaders, but established, empowered or funded by statute, is State regulation or legitimate self-regulation. The ACDP, ATM, FF Plus and UDM each answered that it is State regulation, not self-regulation. The DA, answering a differently worded question, said that a statutory religious council is not self-regulation, and that a body “established or empowered by the state to exercise regulatory authority over religious institutions constitutes state regulation, even where religious leaders administer it”. ActionSA said the involvement of religious leaders does not decide the question, and that genuine self-regulation must be voluntary. BOSA warned that “when government introduces laws that regulate what may be said or preached from the pulpit, or that begin to place limitations on how people may express and practise their faith, we should be cautious about where that leads”. ActionSA and BOSA emphasised the importance of properly implementing existing laws. The ANC statement does not say explicitly whether a statutory body led by religious leaders would count but refers to “self-regulation” and its unshakable defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of all religious communities.

On whether a party would support legislation later, once a voluntary body exists, the ACDP, ATM, FF Plus and UDM each answered “no”. The DA answered: “No, not where the purpose or effect would be to convert voluntary religious self-regulation into compulsory state regulation.” ActionSA said any future proposal must independently show compelling need and constitutional compliance.

Where the answers differ

The six parties that answered “no” on legislation did not all say the same thing about what should happen next. Asked whether the process should restart on a different basis, the FF Plus answered “no”. The ACDP answered “Possibly”, but only after the Section 22 committee is reconstituted and properly representative. The ATM answered, “yes” but “subject to fundamental changes”, and UDM “yes, but only on a genuinely voluntary basis.” The DA said any such initiative “must originate from the communities themselves”.

On whether existing laws are sufficient to deal with abuse, fraud and misconduct in religious institutions, the ACDP, ActionSA, ATM, FF Plus and UDM answered yes, with the ATM and UDM adding that this depends on proper enforcement. The DA said the “appropriate starting point is the effective enforcement of South Africa’s existing laws”, and that any genuine gaps “should be addressed through carefully tailored, constitutionally justified measures rather than a general system of religious licensing or control”.

FOR SA’s view: why the detail matters

In our view, a general statement about “regulation” tells voters something, but it does not settle the questions on which the Section 22 process turns. Would a party support a Bill that gives legal force to a code of conduct, a register or a sanctions regime? Does it treat a statutory council led by religious leaders as self-regulation or State regulation? Would it support legislation later, if a voluntary body is set up first? It is important to consider this detail and see exactly where different parties draw the line.

What happens next

Positions can change, and parties that have not yet responded remain welcome to do so. We will update this post as responses and corrections arrive.

Corrections and updates. This comparison reflects only the material available to FOR SA as of 26 October 2026. Any party is welcome to contact FOR SA with an updated viewpoint or a correction, and the post will be updated accordingly. Please contact Zoé Langa at zoe.langa@forsa.org.za. No party’s position is described here as final.