The distinction between evil and righteousness.

People have generalized evil practices in our country, leading to evil conducts being accepted as normal. Each of us carries some responsibility to address wrongness in our respective environments. The Zimbabwean people should not be in the habit of generalizing problems but should seek to address them legalistically, to enhance normal life.

In the physical universe, there is nothing like absolute wrongness or absolute evilness. The more an action portrays wickedness, the eviler it would cause. On the other hand, the more an activity portrays righteousness the more righteous it would cause. As long as an action is harmful to the greatest number of people, the eviler it would be. Yet when benefitting the greatest number, but harmful to just a few, the more righteous it would be.

The only reason disputes exist, is that ordinary people are not aware of the technology that distinguishes between evil and righteousness. In Zimbabwe, the problem is said to be polarization. One group holds workable ideals and yet the other maintains what is considered unworkable. Polarization can be eliminated where the demarcation between evil and righteousness is clear.

Humans have one thing in common, and that is survival. It can only be a sick person, in need of psychiatric handling, who fights against survival. Mental problems can be handled, when aware of how the mind functions. The minimum workability of the mind is distinguishing between good and evil.

The activities of normal people ought to be addressing the question of human survival. When spared from death, towards survival, one ought to understand the responsibility on matters of survival. A person seeking to eliminate nineteen people, to save one, is insane. But one should be classified as normal when opting to kill one person to save nineteen.

A problem exists when two groups argue, based on one desiring to kill the majority, to save the minority. And the other seeking to kill one to save the majority. An arbitrator, suggesting a compromise, between the two groups, for purposes of peace would be wrong. A problem is identified as a problem, only because it would be containing falsehood, which is non-survival.

An arbitrator, assuming to solve a problem by suggesting a compromise, would be further complicating the problem. Those recognized as professional arbitrators, but strangely behaving in that manner, are evil. This is like using a tranquillizing drug, with known side effects, to cure an endemic disease. This allows the endemic disease to pervade other areas.

The opposing sides assumed to be entrenched in different viewpoints, need to understand the demarcating line before appreciating reasons for their dichotomous viewpoints. Good arbitrators help those two groups to identify workable solutions. What is evil is non-survival, while what is righteous is pro-survival.

Imagine a mechanic who, instead of handling a puncture, starts questioning about none existent problems on the car? One would also be mentally insane when entertaining such kind of a mechanic. The same applies to other aspects of handling problematic issues. The starting point is to identify and handle the problem, before blaming the nature of the car.

The politically opposed groups have one thing in common; which is survival. The perennial polarization between ZANU PF and MDCA is unnecessary. Suggesting that ZANU PF needs to be condemned for bringing problems is like condemning the entire vehicle because of a puncture. An analytical person identifies problematic issues before condemning the entire vehicle. This is what common sense entails.

The fact that we have Republicans and Democrats in so-called developed countries like the USA, does not make polarization normal. This is just as there may not be anything wrong with a one-party state, as practised in China. The idea of polarization comes from not-so-intelligent people. Common sense requires dealing with problems, rather than with personalities.

The aspect of solving problems does not require dealing with personalities. It requires identifying and eliminating problems, accordingly. Few people deliberately create confusion to elongate their corruptible activities. The majority seek to survive, but without knowing the way towards survival.

In a confused state, a person might clutch on things that accelerate the route towards demise. The common mistake is making significance out of problems. Anything problematic exists out of falsehood. Without lies, there is no problem to talk about. A person who believes in lies, behaves like a newly born calf, sucking its mother’s tail, assuming it to be the nipple.

A problem is as easy to handle as discarding falsehoods and clinging to what is true. Why would a person argue that plastic is metallic, without evidence? Checking is necessary to test authenticity. This is the only way to ascertain that plastic cannot be metallic. Nothing else is necessary to acquire authenticity.

The nature of our problems emanates from a Zimdollar currency operating with other currencies, unemployment and poverty. But those things are mere effects, caused by something else. For instance, if troubled by dust, one knows that it would be the wind, without which nothing stirs the dust. There is no need to talk about dust giving problems, without the wind.

To solve the problem of the surging dust, one blocks the wind. Addressing the problematic wind could require scientific handling. The bottom line is that problems are easily handled by blocking the cause. Inflation, poverty, and unemployment emanate from misgovernance, arising from putting the wrong people in political positions.

The reason why we have wrong people in political positions is the failure to differentiate between falsehoods and truths. The biggest falsehood is the assumption that every other person should be viewed as a liar. Having been lied to, before, makes one easily assume that nobody is capable of telling the truth. A person in that condition could also be a liar.

There is truth in that a person who is quick to distrust, would often be a liar, himself. A person who distrusts his spouse has a problem with infidelity, him/herself. A truthful person is willing to serve others, without recompense. Rather than dwell on matters of distrust, a truthful person is a problem-solver.

Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres (1 Corinthians 13:7). This does not mean trusting blatant liars, whose falsehoods ought to be exposed and dealt with, accordingly. Most people are victims of failure to confront falsehoods. A truthful person does not hesitate to confront falsehoods when comparing them with truthful information.

Blatant liars exist because of not being confronted in their condition of lying. Ordinary people struggle with the inability to confront falsehood. They tend to generalize, rather than deal with specifics, on issues of falsehood. Telling a person that he/she would be a liar is generalizing.

There is no human being who was created to be a liar. Confronting should deal with specific statements, constituting falsehood. This is different from insisting that the whole person would be a liar. In other words, the person stating that another person is a liar, would himself be telling lies.

A lie cannot be used to correct another lie. Falsehoods make it impossible for people to amicably coexist. However, when holding the spirit of doing to others as one desires them to do to one, it is impossible to portray other people as liars.

When exposing lies, but trusting other fellow humans, one becomes their brother’s keeper. Imperfect though humans are, in them exists the potential to be good. With good people around, practising this philosophy, it becomes easier to develop better citizens.

In a politically intolerant Zimbabwe, building relations cannot be easy. The starting point is suspending one’s viewpoint, to hear the other person. The trick is in listening, more than talking. What is the other person’s viewpoint and how applicable is it, on matters of survival? Listening paves the way to understand. This enables the other person to prove the unworkability of his viewpoint, rather than you proving it for him.

It may be possible that the other person’s viewpoint might be better than yours. There is nothing wrong with changing positions if the other viewpoint is more convincing and workable. Humans run into problems of denial, due to pride and dogmatism. But what is right should not be associated with personalities. Just as anything wrong should not be associated with anyone.

A person can do or say what is wrong, but that does not make him a liar, necessarily. The way to handle humans is by focusing on what is right, leading to exposing what is wrong, rather than focusing on personalities. Wrong things are wrong because they are outside what is normal, constituting evilness. Whatever is regarded as evil, portrays abnormality, deserving to be discarded.

Doing what is right is pro-survival, as giving advantage to the greatest number of people. The opposite gives the disadvantage to the greatest number of people. When approaching problems in that manner, it becomes impossible to be associated with myriads of problems, such as currently existing in Zimbabwe.

Several legal experts focus on making money, rather than delivering services. Are they in that field for personal gain or serving the Zimbabwean people? Some people are in the legal profession, but not for pro-survival purposes. They would be there to counter pro-survival activities, instead.

Separating those experts is the virtue of the greatest number of people being served, rather than the least number. Just recently, I was listening to an audio by Brian Mari Matutu, through Zimeye, concerning the blatant violation of our constitution.

Generally, some legal experts condemn ZANU PF and ED for constitutional violations. But without taking legal processes to address illegalities? Certainly, something is wrong, somewhere. If the constitution is violated, what are people supposed to do about it, without necessarily having to blame individuals?

It may be true that the courts in Zimbabwe are biased. But, only the truth can set people free. If indeed, the courts are biased, what are Zimbabweans doing about it? A few years back some white farmers appealed to the SADC tribunal, for recourse. The outcome favoured the applicants, but without tangible fruits.

Does it seem the legal experts found it too daunting to appeal further than that? My calculations reveal that our problems are not necessarily a result of ZANU PF shenanigans. But a failure to confront the realities of what is wrong, to instil legitimacy. That is the job of those who went to college to study law.

Were those graduates studying the law for personal gain or public service? As long as they were studying for personal gain, those lawyers should be regarded as evil. I use lawyers in my example, solely because our country is riddled with illegalities, yet with thousands of legal experts. It is wrong to blame individuals, for violating the laws of our country, without doing anything about it.

“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 is guilty, without proof, through a competent court. This is the basic understanding that everyone should hold. Lampooning President Mnangagwa for violating the constitution, yet doing nothing about it, is not only unwise but also untruthful. Let us deal with facts alone, to be able to even persuade the outsiders, if indeed necessary when ED is practising evilness.

Some people talk of mass action, as the only way to address illegitimacy. But I, simply, find that to be untrue, except for purposes of raising the alarm? Mass action promotes lawlessness so that the bloodthirsty soldiers can use that to commit crimes against humanity. Our problems need to be handled legalistically because we are governed through a constitution.

My averred pronouncement is that the Zimbabwean problems exist because of the failure to take responsibility by citizens. People should be able to separate between evil and goodness. The enhancement of life requires adopting what is good, rather than what is evil. But it is impossible to know what is evil without knowing what evil entails.

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 for $13.99

Also available as an e-copy at  for $6.99