The significance of a monarchy

Britain is regarded highly, by many nations, even though also loathed by others for having been a colonizing power. The hatred of Britain only serves to confirm the consideration of British superiority by those grumbling Africans. The displayed emotional hatred, by the so-called revolutionaries, is generally hypocritical. A typical example is that of the late former Zimbabwean President Mugabe.

He emotionally displayed British hatred but committed himself to observing everything English, during his reign. His ignorant supporters became extremely entertained by that fallacy, without checking the man’s true characteristics. He loved his English language, but more so, everything, traditionally, English.

To the informed, his rants against the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were not genuine but revealed his secret love for Britain. This is like a jilted girlfriend, badmouthing a former boyfriend. The uninformed outsiders would assume the hatred to be genuine, but only justifying the bitterness of being rejected by someone, truly loved.

The British monarch has traditionally, endured as a governing system that has evolved over many years, as a paganistic evolution. Britain is regarded as a Christian nation, but in name only. Adherence to tradition is a form of being pagan. Christianity implies a commitment to Christ’s teachings. Many nations identify themselves as Christian, when, actually, rooted in paganism.

But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honour his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;  in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:5-9 NIV).

There is nothing Christian about the English monarchy. The Church of England traditionally officiating in the coronation of the British monarchy has got nothing to do with Christianity. Such tradition can be fascinating, like anything in this world, but true Christians cannot be diverted by sideshows.

Britain is one of the few countries practising monarchial traditions, throughout the world. Those of the current generations are simply amused, if not mystified by such conservative traditions. They observe a powerful monarchy but are unaware of the origin of such a phenomenon.

The conservation of such traditions has remained strong, among the British. However, the only reason for the existence of such traditions could mainly be nostalgia for the British public. Some Africans display disapproval of Britain, having been one of the powerful colonizers. They view the English people as more evil than Africans or other races.

What can be as mindboggling as remarkable is that Kuwait is rumoured with enslaving blacks from poor countries. However, what is documented as terribly happening in Kuwait is portrayed as being the behaviour of the European countries. However, currently, Western nations use laws that proscribe racism and ill-treatment of other fellow humans.

There may be racists among their communities, but their government policies outlaw racism. My sincere question is on why black people; ordinarily hate those from the West more than they hate the Chinese, for instance. Blacks are willing to swallow whatever, forms of propaganda from those manipulating their ignorance.

The common accusation is that Britain looted most African wealth, in order to empower the empire. However, the indefensible assertion is that Africans did not know what to do with the mineral wealth, in their territories. They were uneducated to know how to govern themselves.

The looting was, probably, facilitated by the greedy African monarchs, at the time. Bad as slavery can be considered to have been, Africans were not the only victims. The Bible reveals the Pharos of Egypt having been involved with slave trading. Interestingly, looting is still practised; even today. Generally, slavery was practised by stronger nations against weaker nations.

The uneducated Africans may have been more attracted to slavery, than other nations. This should not be misconstrued as justifying African slavery. But those lamenting, over enslavement more than other nations, remain in slavery condition. Nothing good can come from such people.

The British may have subjugated other races, but not necessarily being eviler than other races. In this world, what is important is to allow people to think independently. I am aware of others, emotionally charged against me when I oppose those persuaded to believe that Africans were victimized more than others. I am aware of risking being accused of siding with oppressors.

However, let us appreciate the differences between emotional opinions and analytical opinions. Indeed, British history is tainted by colonialism; the worst being its treatment of Africans. Nevertheless, there is no country, in this world, that can claim not to have been treated badly by another. The English emerged from the shackles of bad treatment by other nations, as well.

The story of humanity cannot be told without the subject of conquering and being conquered by other races. This is just as it would be impossible for the British to claim to be of the pure racial breed. The world is moving fast toward invalidating racial identity, notwithstanding the existence of psychotics; still stuck in the past. Who, in this world, can claim to be of pure breed, considering the phenomenon of intermarriages, throughout the ages?

Nevertheless, I would be a pretender, if I suppressed my own independent opinion, on such matters. Going along with those, antipathetic to the British people, cannot connect with my intellectual understanding. I may not be historically educated enough to delve into colonial viewpoints. But I grew up during the Rhodesian government, aware that Smith was opposed by Britain. I was also aware of the racist tendencies of some white people.

It is true that some whites treated blacks sub-humanly. But I am also aware of some blacks treating their fellow blacks sub-humanly. I find it extremely unreasonable to suggest that whites should be regarded as eviler than blacks. I certainly know that the only harvest for hatred and bitterness is the multiplication of evilness. There are no two ways about it.

The valued attraction in a monarchial tradition is the unification of a people under a common tradition. The human race feels vulnerable without coalescing in one common tradition. The Monarch unifies the British people. But they could have as well used anything, as a national symbol to unify them.

Humans are united when focusing on one common symbol, viewed as granting identity. The Babylonian Tower was one such example, although blocked by God, who had better plans for humanity (Genesis 11:1-9). The power of agreement invalidates reasoning. In other words, there is no common sense in collectivity, among those ruled by the reactive mind.

The Americans are unified by their constitution, under the banner of freedom. The Temple unified the Jews in Jerusalem. The Moslems are united by the Koran. Whatever unites the Russians is what caused them to invade Ukraine. The Chinese are united by the Chinese Communist Party. The EU nations are united by the Roman Catholic, now even bolstered by the EU currency.

Africans seek to coalesce under Pan-Africanism but seem to be failing dismally, due to tribal divisions. Julius Malema can be commended for vocally featuring as spearheading the Pan-African agenda, supported by its evangelist, Professor Lumumba, from Kenya. Generally, the majority of Africans seem to coalesce into the stupidity of assuming to be victims of slavery and colonialism.

Africans would do well if dropping the idea of being victims of colonialism and started taking responsibility for matters of governance. One hopes that the stance taken by the current Zambian leader, Hakainde Hichilema, spreads across Africa. That is the only trajectory that Africans could adopt to redeem their dignity.

The question of identity has always been a real concern for humanity. This has also transcended to Christianity, feeling secure, when belonging to some Church doctrine, under some leadership. It has to be one common belief, causing people to coalesce into some grouping, for security reasons.

That kind of behaviour justifies the stable datum doctrine. For instance, the Seventh Day Adventists are united under Sabbath Keeping, while the Pentecostals are united by speaking in tongues. The Baptists are united by the idea of water baptism. Appropriate Scriptures are quoted, by each, to justify behaving in that manner. Humanity, across relationships, is sustained by their respective doctrines of stable datum, broken down to cultural traditions.

Whatever is agreed to; carries survival value, as granting mind stability. For instance, in Zimbabwe, the liberation fighters were united by the spirit of Mbuya Nehanda. The entire nation can agree to coalesce under the spirit of Mbuya Nehanda and survive better but without proof of Mbuya Nehanda’s currency.

In short, that is what describes idolatry. God had to hide Moses’ burial site, just to curtail possible idolatry. Had the Israelites known Moses’ burial site, they would treat the place as a holy shrine, up to today. The only survival value of idolatry is granting the stability of the mind. Idolatry is another form of stupidity, gripping humanity, having also been one of the Israelites’ weaknesses.

All customs and traditions originate from idolatry, granting stability to the mind. Without God, humanity is insecure and vulnerable. Without belonging to some group one is insecure, but God never designed it that way. Traditions were adopted after the Garden of Eden incident.

Humans are rarely whipped against their group idea. But can be whipped into coalescing under some form of tradition with the group. Although giving a sense of survival, groupings cannot provide permanent security. The Israelites comprised a grouping with which God would work.

Nevertheless, one of the Ten Commandments clearly stated that the Israelites were to avoid worshipping other gods, before the living God. Their commitment to Israelite grouping, more than believing in God, would constitute idolatry.

The Israelites’ history of rising and falling shows one or two individuals being used to bring them back to repentance. Nowhere is recorded the initiative to repent, as a group, after falling out with God. It had to be an individual, standing up, either as a prophet, or a leader. At some point, a woman, Deborah, was used.

However, the Israelites succumbed to idolatry as a group. At one point their grouping mentality conspired to convince Aaron to mould a golden calf after Moses had delayed coming from engaging with God. A careful analysis reveals that their rebellion was driven by a group mentality.

Possibly, one role model would suggest idolatry, so that the entire group just agree. It takes one individual character to assume the commitment to Godly principles, before persuading others to repent. Such characters became leaders by default. Human behaviour, as characterized by the Israelites’ rising and falling, ordinarily describes human nature.

Such behaviour does not come from reasoning but from being influenced, to coalesce into a unit. God’s rejection always springs from a group mentality. But for a group to be saved, it would always be one person who rises above the rest, to save them. At one stage, the entire group had fallen victim to the fear of a Philistine giant, Goliath.

God used a small boy, David, to rescue the entire group. David’s resolve did not consider the group’s opinion but was driven by God’s will. Reason had to prevail, using God’s word, rather than assuming the consideration of the group’s viewpoint. The human capture lies in the failure to distinguish one’s identity.

The identity of an individual does not come from a grouping mentality. It is based on discovering being God’s child, as revealed by Jesus in Matthew 16:13-20. Jesus imparted Himself as the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). God always calls people as individuals, and not as a group.

It can be discouraging to observe that one’s entire group fails to understand God’s truth without obscurity. The cause of failure, by the group, would be a result of coalescing under some leader. There is no freedom in-group mentality. Rising above the group to obey God, is the greatest achievement, for a Christian.

The entire world has been gripped by the death of a ninety-six-year-old Queen of England. There is nothing fascinating about that death, except capturing the minds of those assuming she was greater than other fellow humans. However, she was as ordinary as needing food and going to the toilet and dying like everyone else. Blessed are those who understand this reality.

With all the magnificence of her place of residence, she could not live beyond ninety-six years. Yet, a one hundred and four-year-old man in Gokwe, is still alive, under a bespattered Zimbabwean economy. No access to medical care, no access to good food, yet mysteriously living that long.

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. Most Zimbabweans should find the book as a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.

The Print copy is now available at for $13.99

Also available as an e-copy at  for $6.99