Truth Telling - Moral Implications

‘Truth Telling - Moral Implications’

Fr Peter Paul Musekiwa SJ

Telling the truth has moral implications on the actor and on a society. Zimbabwe has been saddled by intolerance, corruption, misgovernance and misinformation, depending on the side of the political divide that one stands. We all have a role to play to enhance communicate truthfully regardless on the media through which we do so. There is no need to weaponise the media to foment intolerance. Countries that have done so have experienced a terrible loss of life through media instigated violence.

In his book entitled Being Afrikan, Professor Mandivamba Rukuni emphasised that one of his objectives for writing the book is that he “wants us as Africans to look at ourselves again and know that we ought to be proud of our ancestors and the wealth of knowledge that they built for us” (Rukuni Mandivamba, Being Afrikan, 2007, 6). The encouragement in the words of Professor Rukuni as quoted above should vibrate the positive frequency and raise the spirit of a longing for an authentic self-expression for us Africans. We need to examine our national conscience as Zimbabweans with regards to truth telling and its moral implications. The general problem that one sees in our society today is intolerance. James L. Gibson in his article Political Intolerance in the Context of Democratic Theory, describes intolerance as the unwillingness to put up with disagreeable ideas and groups (Gibson L. James, Political Intolerance…2013). Besides intolerance being the cause for many African societies’ failure to democratise, it has equally been the cause of many conflicts since the 1950s and in our day as well. In the case of Zimbabwe, it seems that the cause of our quandaries is compounded. Our problems are a combination of both intolerance from both within and outside the country, and lack of truth telling, which are in my view two sides of the same coin. For instance, since the year 2000, the ZANU-PF led government has blamed all the calamities that bedevil the country on the sanctions imposed by the United States of America and its allies in the West against individuals and companies that belong to the governing ZANU-PF party and others who support the activities of that political party financially. However, the government

has never clearly communicated to the nation what percentage of the bad performance of the economy is a direct result of the sanctions or corruption. The Herald of 10 September 2019 reported that sanctions have cost Zimbabwe US$42 billion in revenue since 2001. But equally, the question is: How much has Zimbabwe lost in revenue due to unfettered corruption in the 40 years of independence? By hiding such information government becomes culpable of lacking benevolence and respect for its citizens. Propaganda numbs the mind, especially of the simple ones. Free thinkers can always make an effort to find out things for themselves as much as that is possible. Besides, the other way by which politicians who belong to the ruling ZANU-PF spread intolerance is by deflecting the truth through creating a false narrative and image about their perceived enemies. Since the formation of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in 1999 – nothwithstanding its own squabbles and splits, the narrative has consistently been that the MDC, regardless of its different outfits, is an enemy of the state whose sole objective is regime change with the help of perceived enemy foreign powers. These are narratives rooted in the DNA of intolerance. No political party is equivalent to a nation. Morally speaking, such distorted narratives cause the ruling party fail to perform its political duties such as protecting all citizens from harm especially that which can be caused by state agents. Treating all citizens with justice and equity, uprooting corruption, allowing legitimate freedoms to citizens and harnessing the energies of citizens and encouraging national development is the moral and political duty of the government. But an intolerant government is disrespectful, repressive and oppressive to citizens in an attempt to take total control of citizens. However, the MDC also displays lack of tolerance and truth telling as well. The problems associated with the succession of the founder of the party, the late Morgan Tsvangirai, and the constant berating of the loss of the 2018 harmonised elections, characterized by the infamous expression kudira jecha musadza, an approach which at face value denotes spoiling the programmes and efforts of the ruling party as a way of seeking relevance and possibly change of government, has not been helpful for Zimbabwe. Be that as it may, when Winky D, a popular local musician, used the expression in his song named Jecha, it gave an impression that he was encouraging the rowdy unemployed youths he calls gafa(s), in that song, to put up all forms of resistance against a failed regime of President Emmerson Mnangagwa. Consequently, as ZANUPF churns out propaganda narratives, and slings mud at the opposition politicians the MDC Alliance has resorted to applying some irritating forms of resistance making both parties culpable of fomenting intolerance in the country. It is almost like the “eye for an eye” situation, which Jesus clearly prohibits in the Gospels discourage “an eye for an eye”. The use of evil in a bid to control evil simply breeds even more evil than before. What we ought to do to correct this situation as a nation? My reading of Immanuel Kant’s moral doctrine concerning lies, (Sullivan J. Roger, Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory, 1989, 170-177) makes me think that the nation needs to cultivate such virtues as courage, temperance, honesty, interdependency and tolerance. The source of intolerance in Zimbabwe is due to the failure to respectfully tell the truth. Politicians resort to using lies to pursue their agenda. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines lying as a form of deceiving. Immanuel Kant postulates that we all have a moral duty to tell the truth. Those who criticise Kant on his universal principle of this moral proposition claim that he is a rigorist and suggest “desert island circumstances”, which are almost non-attainable situations with no other alternatives available to choose from. For example, if a potential murderer seeks information about his intended victim who sought refuge in your place, are you obliged by Kant’s moral stands to tell the truth to the would-be-murderer? Using this “desert island circumstance”, and assuming it destroys his stand, Kant’s critics suggest that we are not obliged to tell the truth to everyone in all circumstances at all times, but we can always withdraw the truth from some people such as the potential murderer in the example. But Kant insists that we ought to tell the truth all the time in all circumstances to preserve the moral fibre of society. Governing a country is unlike the ‘desert island circumstance’ proposed by Immanuel Kant. People have a right to the truth because it shapes, informs and orders their life. The culture of intolerance and hate speech is immoral because it constitutes weapons that harm the psychology of a nation. Zimbabwe is a perfect example of the effects of such a culture without being in a state of war. Jesus Christ teaches us to practice truth telling by avoiding too many words as he says “let a yes be yes” and “a no be no” anything beyond this comes from the devil (Matthew 5, 37). Many politicians subscribe to Christianity in one form or another. As such, from a scriptural perspective they have the moral duty to tell the truth. Christian leaders who are close to them should equally help them to value telling the truth if they firmly believe in Jesus Christ, or else they are complicit in deception. We need Unhu or Ubuntu to complement truth telling.