This universe is sustained by natural laws which follow some systematic pattern, for anyone to predict outcome, whether positive or negative. If one is a farmer and fails to till the land, during the rainy season, one would be exposed to starving to death. Yet, when using the rainy season to objectively plan and plant crops in abundance, one could anticipate harvesting abundantly. The excess yields could be sold, enabling access to abundant cash for luxuries.
However, in primitive cultures, more focus is on gods or supernatural provisions, than planning and hard-working on the fields. This has been the curse that remains intact in most African countries. That mindset needs adjusting and using it for survival purposes. The formulae for good governance and good standard of living is hard work, combined with economic planning and responsibility. At the advent of independence, most blacks assumed that independence implied having it easy and receiving things for free. The responsibility was left on God to cause the flow of good things to come their way.
Forgive me for using our beautiful country, Zimbabwe, as a typical example. What was observed at Zimbabwe’s independence, was irresponsible spending—right at the point of gaining independence. The formula that was adopted by the new governing system was to reward the down stats and punish the up stats. Positions of authority were used for rewarding the former liberation fighters. This was not a matter of anticipating production from those war veterans.
Having fought for independence, it was, indeed, necessary to reward those having gallantly fought for independence. But, by who and how were the war veterans’ funds supposed to be raised? It required a responsible governing system to come up with specific details in handling this important question at independence. This could not have been a difficult task. Freeing people from oppression had been the doctrinal philosophy that motivated most fighters to perceive value in independence.
Black parliamentarians had the temerity to table issues of rewarding the new prime minister and his cabinet, not the impoverished populace. They viewed the developmental programs as unimportant. It was at that point that things started crumbling, and not later, as assumed by most people. What sustained the early part of Mugabe’s rule had been the previously, properly managed economy, by Ian Smith. The new administration, simply, focused on rewarding the down stats, at the expense of up stats.
Even the president of the opposition, Nelson Chamisa, has been heard commending Mugabe for having been good at the early stages of independence. This can be used as an indicator that Chamisa might, also, hold some proclivity to behave like Mugabe. While credit must be highlighted, in view of the expansion of educational facilities, the letdown was on the type of education. An educational system that provides good principle, focuses on rewarding the up stats, rather than rewarding the down stats.
Education was seen as facilitating entry into the class of those living luxuriously, in top-notch suburban areas. This kind of thinking had been adopted from white settlers—racially dividing people according to privileges. The whites considered themselves superior to blacks. The majority of them could not assimilate black African cultures. At independence, the class segregation was adopted as the standard by the educated, whether productive or not.
This is where education was viewed as confirming entry into the luxurious lifestyle, enjoyed by the white population. Proper education ought to have been defined as providing better services in one’s community. In other words, a graduate ought to have sought to be valuable to his/her own people. His/her own personal statistics should have been used as indicative of how the community benefited. Unfortunately, the focus on self-centeredness had been given priority. Even the supposed beneficiaries of graduates could not think in terms of benefiting or not benefiting from those graduates.
The parents encouraged their children to go to school, in order to adopt that ostentatious life-style. The parents prided themselves on having educated their children to be better than the average people in the community. This was the same thinking pattern among politicians—adorably referred to as ‘honorable’ members of parliament. Living lives that were considered better than others, became the aim, even by ordinary people, themselves.
It must be noted that this kind of thinking has got nothing to do with production and the development of a country. The person’s own development—being viewed as better than everyone—became the only focus. Meanwhile, the politicians were awarded free access to the government treasury.
They had the right to use state funds for themselves, where the poor majority apathetically accepted that condition. To them, that was the price of being ruled, anyway. Yet independence had granted them the privilege to elect people they could reward according to productive statistics. The ordinary people could not be bothered, or ask questions, as being a government minister was considered as an honorable privilege, after all.
Ordinary people were tranquilized by subsidies or handouts, which made them assume that they had a caring government, at their disposal. But the caring of this nature appeals only to the uneducated. It has got no intellectual rationale, as to why anyone should be paid without producing anything. I suppose a clever fish could be imagined as being highly suspicious of a worm, dangled in front of it, by a fisherman? A careful observer knows that anything said to be good, demands rewarding up stats, rather than rewarding down stats.
If you do not adequately plan and industriously grow crops during the rainy season, as a farmer, you are exposed to starving. But if you plan carefully and industriously grow crops you reap in abundance and enjoy good living. The effect of being rewarded for hard work, as directed by intelligent thinking can enable anyone to achieve a high standard of living. This has got nothing to do with luck.
The driving forces that determine either succumbing or surviving are self-centeredness as compared with altruism. These are contradictory philosophies, pulling in opposite directions. A government minister who goes into government with the aim of enriching himself is different from the one focusing on benefiting the community. In other words, where up stats are rewarded, it does not matter whether one would be in government or not. One could be a farmer or a shoemaker. It is only hard-work, through intelligent usage of one’s intellect that would cause the person to be rewarded abundantly.
The malady of rewarding down stats was adopted from a bourgeois mentality, having been embraced by the white settlers—but envied by the new rulers. The laws of survival are based on cause and effect—where cause focuses on survival, and effect focusing on death. One becomes the cause when producing valuable commodities, rather than being the effect, when consuming what others produced. What one does, can be exchanged for money, if considered valuable by those willing to part with their precious money to obtain it. This is the only principle that sustains commerce and industry.
We see this, even in sporting activities. A professional footballer cannot be rewarded similarly to an amateur. There is no reason for an amateur to expect being paid heftily when excelling as a boozers soccer player. A professional footballer is the one who trains hard and whose mind gets focused on nothing else, except excellent results in football. His professional prowess is what lends him in the stream of lucrative financial gains. It is always results that make a difference—not favoritism.
Nothing is different, as long as undertaking an activity that gets admired by other people, who then reward such a professional, accordingly. If a farmer gets rewarded for his hard work, the same applies to a shoe-maker—rewarded for producing quality shoes for other people. That person could produce excellent shoes, just for himself. But for him to receive outstanding financial rewards, he has to produce more of such excellent shoes for others to then gladly buy from him. It is those other people who then become willing to exchange their precious money for what is considered valuable.
The question is, what valuable product is one exchanging, to deserve being paid abundantly? Apparently, this idea of being caught squealing about sanctions displays a failure to uphold the principle of rewarding up stats, rather than down stats. A self-centered person wants to receive things for free and assumes that to be a divine right for him. An altruistic person enjoys more in giving than receiving and is granted respect, solely, on that consideration. There is no magic to it. An altruistic person is cause-point, while the self-centered person is the effect.
If Zimbabwe is accursed, it is accursed because of having more people who take comfort in being effects, rather than cause. It is quite interesting to imagine how the white people think of the governing authorities who unashamedly seek dependents on Western influence and investments? African independence, for most black people, came through the bitter armed struggle. Why should such gallant liberators, in their current quagmires, be found squealing, expecting to be bailed out by the former white settlers?
Obviously, those whites always prefer wearing a veneer called diplomacy, when avoiding telling those stupid governing authorities how foolish they are. Because nothing is stupider than seeking bail-out from those whom you violently took-over power. If led by people who are not ashamed of begging, then that country would be accursed indeed. Because that mentality is easily cascaded down to ordinary people, who then find the temerity to also blame those rulers, rather than themselves.
If you elect a fool to represent you in government, who should be given the tag of being foolish? Apparently, it is those electing such fools to represent them in governance—who carry the tags of foolishness—not necessarily the imbecile, squatting in government offices. It cannot be the elected person, chosen to represent the electorate who should be regarded as one wearing the tag of foolishness.
The starting point is on the inability to evaluate information, to determine the things of value. Most people suffer as a result of putting trust in physical humans, rather than putting some value on workable ideas, for survival purposes. A so-called expert is physically worshipped—rather than worshipping the information he gives. He can advise the politician that printing money is the wisest thing to do. The politician would believe in the strength of the profile of such a so-called expert, rather than evaluating the workability of what he says.
Believing experts is different from believing or not believing what those experts say. All foolishness, as can be imagined, comes from the inability to evaluate information, whether workable or not workable. But this starts with the inability to know what constitutes value—determined by the estimated degree of its survival effectiveness.
This is different from things that could be on high demand, yet without survival consideration. For instance, the intoxicating drugs could be on high demand, yet promoting anti-survival objectives. Anyone becomes an easy victim when unable to analyze information or products, to determine the potential value or lack of it. All problems of humanity emanate from that condition alone.
There is nothing else that can be more important than human beings in this world. It is only for the human beings that Jesus had to die on the cross—not inanimate objects. All other things of material value carry value, only as benefiting human beings. When succumbing to things of material value, any person would have capitulated towards death, which identifies with materialistic objects. When rising above those materialistic objects, a person would have overcome, as to be in control, rather than being controlled.
But I would have failed in my thesis, if unable to reveal the primary cause for such ineptitude in governance. It would surprise many people that countries known to despise Christianity are virtually more prosperous than the so-called God-fearing nations. Nothing is surprising, as one has to look at Christ’s teachings when compared to what is advocated by most of those assuming to be religious.
Jesus taught the principle of altruism, while those religionists preach self-centeredness. In short, it is the demonic spirit, in disguise of the Christian religion that, virtually, caused all problems besieging the African continent. That does not necessarily mean that we are better off without the Bible.
We would be better off, if using the Bible, according to what it says. The false prophets and evangelists ought to be identified and shunned urgently, for things to come back to normal. The teachings of Jesus stand out as the only authentic reality of what changes human lives for the better. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilization, 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, bringing relief to those having witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions––leading to the current economic and social decay. In a simple conversational tone, most Zimbabweans should find the book as a long-awaited providential oasis of hope.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99