- Calls for non-binary thinking can be used to normalise corruption and make political misconduct acceptable.
- The dispute involving Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and National Commissioner General Fannie Masemola raises questions about accountability and police independence.
- A lack of evidence to secure a conviction does not automatically establish that nothing happened or that wrongdoing never occurred.
There is something nonsensical about telling people that doublethink is rational. Increasingly, politicians like Khusela Diko et al. tell us that we cannot be binary in our thinking and understanding of national issues. We must be nuanced, understand complexity and accept grey areas. It sounds sophisticated. It sounds mature. But in practice, it is being used to make the abnormal normal and the corrupt acceptable.
Consider the current absurdity in South Africa. On one hand, senior apparatchiks are dealt with harshly for challenging and opposing ministerial authority. If you are a junior official or a Vusi Pikoli and you question a minister or president, you are charged with insubordination, indiscipline or bringing the organisation or state into disrepute. You are told that the chain of command matters and that you must obey.
On the other hand, the police chief is condemned for not disobeying instructions from the minister. The National Commissioner, General Fannie Masemola, is publicly criticised for following the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, when it is alleged that those instructions were politically motivated. Mchunu says he is not wrong because he gave lawful instructions as the executive authority. Masemola says he is not wrong because he followed lawful instructions as the accounting officer under the police service.
If Mchunu is not wrong and Masemola is not wrong, then what is correct and right? Who is accountable? This is doublethink. And you cannot hold two opposing thoughts in one head and remain sane.
The cult of non-binary thinking as a cover
We must be careful. When politicians say, “Do not be binary,” what do they often mean? They mean we must not call a thief a thief. We must not call a lie a lie. We must not say the ANC or EFF are corruptible. We must not say that a minister who interferes in police operations is wrong and that a general who obeys political interference is also wrong because both can be wrong in different ways.
They want us to believe that you can be loyal to the Constitution and loyal to a corrupt faction at the same time. That you can support the rule of law while protecting comrades who break the law. That you can oppose state capture while supporting the people who captured the state. That is not complexity. That is conditioning. We are being conditioned to accept the abnormal as normal.
In a normal democracy, the principle is simple. The police must be independent. The minister sets policy but does not instruct the police on whom to arrest, whom not to arrest, which case to drop or which investigator to move. If a minister does that, it is political interference. If a police chief obeys that interference, it is a failure of independence. Both are wrong. There is nothing binary about that. It is constitutional logic.
But doublethink tells us that Mchunu was exercising his political mandate and Masemola was exercising his operational duty. Both were acting in good faith, so we must not be simplistic. No. Let us be simple because justice is simple. Either the police are independent, or they are not. Either we have a country of laws or a country of comrades.
Why the corrupt speak loudest about morality
There is another pattern that should concern us. It is corrupt people who speak loudest about what is right or wrong. At the risk of generalisation, this may seem like an overstatement, but observe the pattern.
The person who has benefited most from tenders becomes the loudest preacher of ethics. They want to tell us that BEE is the best model to empower black people. The person who has moved money through friends becomes the loudest defender of good governance. The person who has destroyed evidence becomes the loudest commentator on due process.
Why? Speaking loudly about morality is a way of hiding immorality. It is a decoy. If I am the first to say “We must fight corruption”, then you will not suspect me of corruption. If I am the first to say “We must not be binary”, then you will feel embarrassed to call me out for being two-faced.
This is classic. In George Orwell’s 1984, the Party declared that “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.” It was doublethink. People accepted it because they were told that only simpletons think in binaries. Smart people understand that war can be peace. They simply say it is complicated.
We are living that now. Looting is empowerment. Incompetence is transformation. Silence is discipline. Disobedience is loyalty depending on who does it.
The danger of ‘lack of evidence’ logic
And then there is the most abused line in South Africa today. People say “There is no evidence, therefore he is innocent.” The lack of evidence does not necessarily make one innocent.
A court may find that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That is a legal standard designed to protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment. It is not a certificate of sainthood nor is it a declaration that nothing happened.
When a minister is implicated in interfering with the police, when dockets disappear, when witnesses are intimidated, when investigations are deliberately delayed until evidence deteriorates, and then someone says “But there is no evidence”, we must ask, why is there no evidence? Who made sure there is no evidence?
Innocence is not the same as not being caught. In our context, where the criminal justice system has been gutted, where the Hawks are understaffed and where forensic laboratories have backlogs of years, a lack of evidence can reflect a lack of will to find evidence rather than an absence of wrongdoing.
To tell the public that a lack of evidence equals innocence is to insult their intelligence. The public knows what they see. They see houses built with money that does not match salaries. They see relatives appointed without qualifications. They see crime intelligence used against opponents. They do not need a court judgment to know that something is wrong. Their lived experience is evidence.
We must return to sanity
You cannot hold two opposing thoughts in one head and remain sane. You cannot say you are against corruption and defend the corrupt. You cannot say you support police independence and defend political interference. You cannot say you stand for accountability while punishing those who challenge authority and excusing those who obey unlawful authority. That is not nuance. That is nonsense.
Here is what is correct. The law is above all of us. The minister is not above the law. The general is not above the law. If an instruction is unlawful, it must be disobeyed and reported. If obedience to a minister compromises the independence of the police, then that obedience is itself unlawful no matter how polite.
We should be concerned that we are being conditioned to accept the normal as abnormal. We are being told that calling out wrongdoing is being binary, that demanding clarity is unsophisticated and that wanting right and wrong to mean something is childish.
No. A society that loses the ability to say this is right and this is wrong is a society that has lost its moral compass. And when the loudest moral voices are those with the most to hide, that compass is not lost by accident. It is stolen.
South Africa needs to return to simple truths. A thief is a thief. A lie is a lie. You cannot stand for justice and support those who undermine it while still claiming to be sane.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conviction.co.za
