Polarization arises from the coexistence of good and evil. In a genuine democracy, unity often includes some opposition, since differing opinions are vital before deciding a country’s direction. A one-party state disregards alternative views and adheres to what it considers the standard; it works best when it strives to do more good than harm. At the very least, a sound mind can distinguish between good and evil.
A dictatorship that serves only a select few is generally seen as evil, yet if it benefits the majority, some might view it as good. The core problem of a one-party dictatorship emerges when leaders place personal gain above the common good. It is much like a monarchy: the quality of rule depends entirely on the ruler. In Zimbabwe, corruption now appears so deeply entrenched that wrongdoing has become the norm.
We all have a responsibility to address wrongs in our environments. Zimbabweans should avoid generalizing problems and instead work to solve them legally, thereby improving daily life. In reality, there is no such thing as absolute wrong or absolute evil. The more an action displays wickedness, the more harm it causes; the more it reflects righteousness, the more good it brings. If an action harms the majority, it is more evil; if it benefits the majority while harming only a few, it is more righteous.
Disputes arise because people do not know how to clearly distinguish between good and evil. In our country, polarization is seen as the root of toxicity. While the fast-tracked CAB3 aims to address this, it risks being harmful if it benefits only a few. One side promotes workable ideas; the other clings to what is seen as unworkable. Drawing clear lines between good and evil can help end polarization, rather than conflating the two.
All humans share the drive to survive. Only someone mentally unwell would oppose survival. Understanding how the mind works can help address mental problems. Normal actions should always support human survival. Choosing to kill nineteen to save one is madness; sacrificing one to save nineteen makes sense.
A problem arises when two groups clash—one wanting to kill the majority to save a minority, and the other willing to sacrifice one to save the majority. An arbitrator who tries to broker peace by suggesting a compromise in such a case would be in the wrong. A problem is defined by the presence of falsehood, which is harmful. Those searching to discover the root causes of our problems will not be far from wrong when pointing at compromise as what has led us where we are. Attempting to resolve problems through compromise only worsens matters. Professional arbitrators who act this way are, in truth, acting with ill intent.
It is like using a sedative with known side effects to treat an endemic disease, only to let that disease multiply into different diseases. Opposing sides, firmly rooted in different views, must first recognize the dividing line before they can understand the reasons behind their differences. Good mediators help both groups find workable solutions. What is bad is anything that threatens survival for everyone, and what is good is whatever promotes it.
Tackling polarization means convincing stakeholders to embrace principles that ensure survival rather than destruction. Imagine a mechanic who, instead of fixing a flat tire, starts questioning imaginary problems unrelated to the flat tire. That behavior seems irrational. We should start by identifying and fixing the real problem before blaming the car itself. The same approach applies in any field, whether in agriculture or in art.
Politically opposed groups share one vital interest: survival. The ongoing polarization between ZANU PF and the opposition is unnecessary. Blaming ZANU PF for all problems is like condemning the whole car over a flat tire. A thoughtful person spots the real issues before passing judgment. That is simple common sense.
The fact that countries like the USA always have two dominant parties, Republicans and Democrats, does not mean polarization is normal. Similarly, there is nothing inherently wrong with a one-party system like China’s. Problems with polarization often stem from people who cannot distinguish what is right from what is wrong for their nation. Common sense demands we tackle problems, not personalities.
Solving problems is not about dealing with personalities, but about identifying and removing root causes. Some people create confusion to protect their own corrupt activities, while most are simply trying to survive without knowing how. In confusion, people may cling to things that hasten their downfall. The common mistake is giving problems undue importance—problems exist because of lies. Without lies, there is nothing to discuss as a problem.
Believing lies is like a calf sucking its mother’s tail, mistaking it for a teat. Problems can be resolved by rejecting falsehoods and sticking to the truth. Why argue that plastic is metal without evidence? Verification is the only way to confirm authenticity. Many issues stem from the Zimdollar, now called ZIG, being portrayed as valuable when it is not, especially compared to other currencies, along with unemployment and poverty.
These are effects of deeper causes. Just as dust is stirred by the wind, these problems are driven by something being ignored. To stop dust, you block the wind—sometimes with scientific methods, redirecting it elsewhere. Likewise, it is commonly understood that inflation, poverty, and unemployment often come from misgovernance, caused by placing unqualified people in political roles. It is like hiring someone to manage finances with fake qualifications, or issuing a bus driver’s license to someone who has never been tested.
We often end up with the wrong people in political positions because we fail to distinguish between lies and truth. A major misconception is assuming that everyone is a liar, thereby taking comfort in the idea that no one is capable of being truthful. Past experiences of being lied to can make someone believe that no one tells the truth, and such a person may also be prone to lying. Often, those quick to distrust are themselves untrustworthy.
There is a difference between the lies people tell and the kind of people they are. Someone who constantly distrusts their spouse may have their own issues with infidelity. Dealing with facts alone is the only principle that sets us free. A truthful person is usually known for serving others without fixating on personal reward, avoiding the manipulation of facts for self-gain. Instead of dwelling on distrust, a truthful person seeks solutions.
Love always protects, trusts, hopes, and perseveres (1 Corinthians 13:7). This does not mean trusting blatant liars, whose falsehoods must be exposed and addressed. Many people suffer from failing to confront lies, but a truthful person is not afraid to compare falsehoods with facts, call them out, and help the other person change as well.
Blatant liars persist because they are not challenged. Confrontation does not have to mean direct accusation—it can involve fair, unbiased judgment aimed at the common good. Too often, people avoid confronting lies in the name of peace, generalizing instead of addressing specific falsehoods. Diplomacy is good, but only when it serves the common good.
Calling someone a liar is a generalization; separating specific instances of falsehood and addressing them is the only effective approach. No one is born a liar. Confrontation should focus on particular untrue statements and seek correction, rather than labeling the entire person as dishonest. A single falsehood does not automatically make someone a liar.
A lie cannot fix another lie, just as darkness cannot eliminate darkness. Falsehood makes peaceful coexistence impossible. Yet when we practice the principle of treating others as we would want to be treated, it becomes difficult to brand people as liars. The main reason we even see so many divorces in our society is that people often don’t treat each other the way they’d want to be treated themselves. Exposing lies while trusting others at all times makes one a true brother’s keeper. Though imperfect, humans carry the potential for goodness.
Surrounded by good people following this philosophy, building better citizens becomes easier. In a politically intolerant Zimbabwe, building relationships is challenging. It begins with setting aside your own views to listen to others. Listening more than speaking helps you understand their perspective and its practicality for survival, tackling one issue at a time. This allows the other person to recognize flaws in their own ideas, rather than you having to prove it for them.
Sometimes, their perspective might even be better than yours. There is nothing wrong with changing your stance if their view proves more convincing and workable. Denial often comes from pride and stubbornness, but instead of always trying to be right, it’s better to consider that others might be right until their ideas are tested and shown to be impractical or wrong. Everyone makes mistakes or says the wrong thing sometimes, but that doesn’t automatically make them dishonest.
The best approach is to highlight what is right before addressing what is wrong, steering clear of personal attacks. Humility is often a hallmark of peacemakers. Wrong actions are those that stray from what is normal, harm the majority, and reflect evil that reasonable people should reject. Doing right benefits the greatest number and supports survival, while harming works against the greater good. Nothing else changes the environment for the better.
Often, those causing harm do not realize it will eventually backfire, because hurting others ultimately hurts themselves. Viewing problems in this light can help avoid many issues, like those facing Zimbabwe today. Too many legal experts seem more focused on profit than public service. Are they in the field to help Zimbabweans, or merely for personal gain? Legal experts who do not work for the common good end up undermining justice, harming everyone—including themselves.
Distinguishing genuine experts from the rest ensures the majority is served. Regardless of what some might hold against Professor Lovemore Madhuku and others who promote constitutionalism in the country, I have respect for them. While some legal experts criticize ZANU PF and President Mnangagwa (ED) for violating the constitution, simply speaking out without taking legal action to address these wrongs can feel pointless. Clearly, something is wrong, even if many say the judicial system is captured.
If the constitution is truly being violated, the focus should be on taking action rather than merely pointing fingers. Zimbabwe’s courts may be biased, but only the truth can lead to freedom. If bias exists, what is actually being done to address it? Years ago, some white farmers won their case during the chaotic land reform through the SADC tribunal, yet saw no real change—perhaps legal experts found pushing further too daunting.
The problems seem larger than just ZANU PF’s actions, revealing a reluctance to face uncomfortable truths and work toward legitimacy for the greater good. Like the persistent widow in Jesus’ parable who kept pressing a corrupt judge until he gave in (Luke 18:1-8), persistence in seeking justice ought to rest with those trained in the law.
The real question is whether law graduates studied for public service or personal gain. If it is the latter and they do nothing to address what prevails, they are part of the problem. People who study law for personal gain can be seen as criminals and may be exposed by those who pursue law for the common good. Perhaps the deeper illegality lies not just in governance, but in a legal system filled with people unwilling to act while wrongdoing continues. Simply blaming individuals without real action does not make such people different.
“Instead, you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.’ As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them” (James 4:15-17 NIV).
No one should be considered guilty without proof from a competent court of law. This is a fundamental principle everyone should respect. Criticizing President Mnangagwa (ED) for allegedly violating the constitution while taking no action is not only unwise but can also be misleading. We must stick to facts if we hope to convince others, especially when pointing out illegalities by the current administration.
Some believe mass action is the only way to address illegitimacy, but I find that untrue except as a means to sound the alarm. Mass action often leads to lawlessness, giving violent soldiers an excuse to commit crimes against humanity. Our challenges should be resolved through legal means, guided by the constitution, which is meant to promote the good in society. So, where does the real problem lie?
In my view, Zimbabwe’s issues stem from citizens failing to take responsibility, especially when professional lawyers prioritize personal gain over public service. People should be able to distinguish between good and evil. Improving life means choosing what is good over what is evil. Promoting goodness requires confronting evil, without necessarily placing blame, since even wrongdoers are trying to survive. But we cannot recognize evil without understanding what it truly is.
This principle holds a special place in Christianity, serving as a foundation for goodness in society. While many know what’s right, they may hesitate to act out of fear of criticism or being seen as disruptive due to certain authoritarian practices in the faith. This hesitation often comes from cowardice, and it’s important to remind people that cowardice and standing for truth cannot coexist in true Christianity. When Christianity stays committed to living out the teachings of Jesus, it can guide society toward clarity and honesty.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, relieving those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions, leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99