We live in a strange world in which many people seem able to doubt almost everything (such as the validity of creation or the existence of man or the official explanation for Nelson Chamisa’s loss in 2018) and yet simultaneously are willing to believe almost anything (whether it be evolution or alien abduction or that there are V11s that prove that Wamba won this election) with little or no regard for rationality or evidence.
To water down the legal jargon the past week served us, let me clothe myself in the gird of “street” philosophy and explain the folly that troubles Zimbabwe and particularly why I festively agree with the #Concourt outcome.
I assume that dear reader, you have a modicum of bookish appreciation and you will allow me to take you back to the life skills class where we were taught of the importance of truth and respect of it thereof. (I pray my Lords and Ladies that I do not drown you in jargon and tongue twisters like the “learned” local Latins).
Dear reader, opposition robbed us of truth from the beginning, and it is sad that some became victim to that bad political character. As for me, I believe in rationality, reason and science and therefore we are profoundly sceptical about many beliefs and ideas that others hold always sincerely and often passionately.
I believe in the value of evidence and I am deeply sceptical of anything contrary to reason or lacking in evidence. I believe that belief should be proportioned to credible evidence and demonstrable causality especially where counter-intuitive notions are concerned. I believe in having an open mind, ready to contemplate new ideas backed by persuasive evidence, but not an empty one.
Dear reader, truth has been absent in the “Chete” campaign as it was absent in the “A” team “bundle” of nothing. I regret the hours I spent in front of the television yearning for “bundle” of evidence to prove that the “Nerorists” (as they call themselves) won as they claimed and that the most capable Zec colluded with Zanu-PF and inflated numbers. I am not one who is easily moved by kindergarten level assertions made by an “eloquent” speaker.
I quote eloquent because the linguist reference of it does not mean one’s ability to use jargon or emotively speak. It means clarity in language use, syntactical respect, appreciation of audience, credible and verifiable persuasion – agree with me now, that was absent from one over-glorified “elementary” lingua-user who is now hailed for his use of Latin, oh what a pithy!
Some of us are not moved by pseudo-elaborated codes, (English language is a product of Latin – we all speak Latin).
Watching the proceedings on Wednesday we should have remembered that what was happening in court was equally meant to influence us after the court verdict.
We, the voters mattered and matter in this case and space. We should have been asking, does it really matter what people believe and how they reach their beliefs? Aside the political defeat-denial transforming into a legal battle, it remained vital that Court is a facilitation of truth. Truth that Zimbabwe has/does not have a nauseating electoral fraudulent culture. Truth that Nelson Chamisa won/lost elections. Truth that the most capable Zec has failed/succeeded the litmus test of impartiality and professionalism.
Truth that in the Second Republic, Justice is not only done, but also seen to be done. These and many other truths were at the bidding of that Court petition, hence my understanding and conclusion that Truth is/was central in achieving the Zimbabwe we are desperate for, but alas! Some amongst us are/were economical with the truth.
It is my stoutest belief that they probably do not know the importance of truth in a modern society. I take this time dear reader to tell you, to tell them this:
Truth is the aim of belief. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties.
Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterises the good citizen, the good Pastor, and the good lawyer. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people’s lives? Here lies a class-ical lesson to the “Nerorists”:
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in 321 BCE proposed what he called the correspondence theory of truth. In that, he advised that “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” In other words, the world provides “what is” or “what is not,” and the true saying or thought corresponds to the fact so provided.
This idea appeals to common sense and is the germ of what is called the correspondence theory of truth. It may amount to merely a wordy paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of some assertion, one says “that corresponds with the facts.”
To relate, claims made before the Con-court that Nelson had won and they possessed “damning” evidence to that “fact”, and that elections had been stolen was tantamount to judging elections on what they were not and attempt to impose validity to an international lie made by an Truthless Alliance.
Again, it was a huge paint brush on every Zimbabwean to define them as accomplices (electoral thieves- vocal or silent) in stealing an election from the Alliance.
With such characterisation of Zimbabwe and her people, it rested upon the Alliance to prove that their imaging of the country is true. It ceased to be true when they described the election for what it was not by failure to present that they claimed to have, which they did not have.
What the “A” team successfully did is to show us that “fake” news is only reliant when it suits a “shameless” party and can be only condoned selectively.
But what they did not realise is that it lacked truth and such an absence of an integral component in making society believe you do not only invite legal backlash, but political penalties as well. The credibility and trust in the institution of the Alliance is in limping check as of now.
It is just a matter of time before what I said before elections that the Alliance will explosively crumble manifests, mark my words like always.
Again, another lesson they should take is that structures have spatial locations, but facts do not. One Austrian philosopher, Wittgenstein told that the Eiffel Tower can be moved from Paris to Rome, but the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris cannot be moved anywhere.
The very idea of what the facts are in a given case is nothing apart from people’s sincere beliefs about the case, which means those beliefs that people take to be true (people believed in “damning” V11s that were not).
Thus, there is no enterprise of first forming a belief or theory about some matter and then in some new process stepping outside the belief or theory to assess whether it corresponds with the facts.
There are, indeed, processes of checking and verifying beliefs, but they work by bringing up further beliefs and perceptions and assessing the original in light of those.
In actual investigations, what tells people what to believe is not the world or the facts but how they interpret the world or select and conceptualise the facts.
This is to mean that from a string of the untruths that have been told by the Alliance about meeting Heads of States, being promised huge amounts of money and the possession of evidence of a “stolen” election has informed the public belief. We do not make beliefs out of sympathy that one lost an election or court petition, but based on how you regard and present truth before us and courts.
Listening to Chief Justice Malaba’s verdict, one cannot make a mistake to deduce that the esteemed man just did not want to say “Applicant you are a liar”. The chief Justice remarkably and with heart, decided to tell how the Alliance did not present truth in all/any of their allegations. It goes without doubt that not telling the truth is the nature of the congregation of seven parties. We now await the crumble of the “mighty” Alliance as I told you. Wait and see.