ORDINARILY I should not be bothered to comment on the debauchery in the state media this week concerning Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube, all presented in salacious detail by voyeurists paid to play dirty games on government's political opponents while the nation burns.I don't always agree with some of Ncube's views, such as his alleged call on Britain to invade Zimbabwe Iraq-style.
There was a similarly crazy article on the Internet attributed to one Eddie Cross. I have as much respect for such a project as I have for a military coup.
My abiding belief is that the way to everlasting peace, democracy, love and compassion and an end to violence and destructive political hostility is through the ballot box.
Archbishop Ncube's adultery allegations presented us with a dilemma. Because of the political polarisation in the country, Zimbabweans now view everything either through Zanu PF or MDC eyes. Whether Ncube was engaged in an adulterous relationship with his secretary should never have turned into a political scandal. So is his vow of celibacy.
Being a sinner myself, I am reluctant to judge other people's private lives on strict moral standards. Those are very private spheres which people have to sort out with their creator, whatever their status in life. Archbishop Ncube is no different.
But what happened during the week was apparently an attempt to ruin an individual's life by creating a dangerous moral relativism -- that there is a bigger and a smaller sin.
Ncube was accused of the bigger sin because of his status in the Roman Catholic Church.
Unfortunately even the most well-meaning who were trying defend Ncube got themselves trapped in this two-sins argument.
What is the point of telling us President Mugabe also did it? To the best of my recollection, Ncube never gloated over Mugabe's past personal indiscretions, but took a principled position on fundamental national issues.
If Ncube committed adultery, it is an issue for his tormented conscience. After all, his God knows the whole truth. If he is sued for it, it is for the courts to deliver the verdict, not political opponents. The best entry point in the debate by ordinary Zimbabweans is at the ethical level.
This is to say if Ncube committed adultery, he set a very bad example for his flock and must live with the consequences.
The ethical plane provides us with a level field to judge our leaders. Ncube's enemies want him hanged, which is wrong. His friends want to ignore his alleged unethical behaviour. They are equally wrong.
The truth is that his moral authority has been severely eroded, which is what his enemies wanted, but the truthfulness of the things he has railed against in the past seven years has not diminished. Ncube's opponents lost the plot by going personal.
Ncube was not attacking President Mugabe purely at the personal level. Hunger, state-sponsored violence, shortages of drugs, food, fuel and the torture of opposition activists are there whether Ncube speaks or not. That is what he will be remembered for by those fighting for a better Zimbabwe, not pornography.
There is no need for unnecessary denial, obfuscation or moral relativism. The same thing cannot be right or wrong depending on which political party you belong to.
Mugabe cannot be good as leader of the MDC but bad as leader of Zanu PF. Gukurahundi cannot be right and wrong. It helps us to identify the leaders the nation needs if we approach this debate with an open mind.
This is a debate we in Zimbabwe missed when the South Africans were confronted with the Jacob Zuma rape trial -- whether he was fit to be the next president.
Unfortunately, for political convenience, it soon veered off course. The Zulus claimed the rape allegation and Zuma's trial were a plot by President Thabo Mbeki to keep them out of power.
Instead of debating Zuma's suitability as an exemplary future leader, tribal politics soon smothered rational discourse.
In Ncube's case, the state media went for overkill. An affair between two consenting adults was treated like rape. It was like Ncube had exercised undue influence over a woman who is 44.
What is not asked is whether it is ethical and responsible for government to waste national resources and time in pursuit of a personal vendetta.
Not just that, but also in clear violation of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act under which a number of private newspapers and journalists have been prosecuted for publishing pornographic material and falsehoods.
If the government was not directly involved in bugging Archbishop Ncube's alleged bedroom, how come no public official invoked that law against the said "private investigator" for breach of privacy?
The ramifications of the entire project are chilling. It means nobody is safe from snooping and government sees nothing wrong with this. It means political rivals in the same party can safely snoop on each other and use whatever information they get to pursue their agenda and the results will be acceptable.
It means such devices can be installed in bars, bedrooms and hotels to record coded signals innocently uttered by private citizens.
These are serious moral and ethical questions which those engaged in the dastardly acts at St Mary's Cathedral should be asking themselves.
Are we now a Gestapo state? Who is next? Who is safe?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce