Monkey say: See no Zuma, hear no Zille, do no Malema

Sure, one version of the original goes, “See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil”. The saying suggests role models and that our behaviour and viewpoints are the result of what is modelled for us. If we are not exposed to evil we will not do evil, is the implication, perhaps naïve to some. Quite frankly, I think South Africa would be lost without those three gems of political characters. What I am trying to suggest in my title, by the order of their names, is that without Zuma and his antics we would not have such an indignant, ANC-bashing Zille and her antics and without Zille we would not have that wonderful clown, Julius Malema, braying at her in turn. The young charmer needs someone to bray at. His brazen and naïve remarks simply make SA politics so much more down to earth and human, rather than “cloak and dagger” fricken apartheid. Nor are his remarks even vaguely intellectual, like poetry-reading Mbeki who, seemingly, couldn’t tell Aids from an HIV test as he was too lost in a cloud of semantics or pipe smoke or both.

See no evil, hear no evil … I am a teacher and therefore have a huge responsibility as a role model. I have taught children virtually all my life, since 1988, mostly not as a school teacher, but through a private company in Johannesburg, which got clients through direct sales. Chinese children have been my best. They are refreshingly spontaneous, free of fear, constantly happy, always have something to laugh about. One reason for this is that there is no corporal punishment. Pain is not a part of their daily life or hearing the dreaded sound of that cane, which was most certainly part of my upbringing. The endless use of the cane or other utensils such as a rubber pipe or cricket bat definitely marred my spontaneity and creative energy. Seeing pain, hearing pain, feeling pain, doing pain, I learned, at a subconscious level, that life was about pain and therefore something to be dreaded. Monkey see, monkey feel … the enormous bullying and teasing that went on in my primary and high school also damaged me, destroyed my self-esteem. In short, life for me as a young adult was often unnecessarily overwhelming.

Not so with Chinese children in Shanghai. They are crackling bundles of enthusiasm and studying is part of their culture.

I am not going to name a person I know. Let us just say she is well-known to friends and family. From an early age a grandparent gave her everything she wanted, and refused to allow her to be punished for anything. No proper sense of right or wrong was developed in the child. The grandparent even bought her cigarettes when the child took up that habit at the age of twelve. The result? Monkey see, monkey hear … as an adult she abused everyone, stole from her parents and family, even a friend’s car and money, ended up in prison for fraud, got released, and later on perpetuated the same recidivism. Subsequently, she has been cut off by friends and family and there is a strong likelihood she will end up on the streets.

She is the result of what was modelled for her. She is my definition of evil: someone who cannot tell right from wrong. I cannot get into her head: maybe she can somehow distinguish between right and wrong but lacks the morality to make the choice for the good. I don’t know; I am not an evil person. Most of my life I have taught children and written poetry (now prose) and cannot harm a fly. I have had a lot of female friends and they all saw me as a big softy with an in-your-face attitude sometimes. So maybe the subject of evil is not my forte but it does interest me at this watershed moment in SA where past leaders (apartheid) were evil and present leaders worry some citizens as they may turn out to be evil.

Though some may see the “See no evil” saying as flawed, it clearly has its place in the development of humans, the viewpoints and beliefs we develop, and also the development of countries. America needs its Obama and we need our Zuma-Zille-Malema. Maybe we need to coin the new SA politics Zuzima. Sounds like a great song or dance rhythm or a new recipe for potjiekos.

I earlier said SA would be lost without the toothsome threesome. Zuma is practical, unlike his overly cerebral predecessor. Though I have a post-graduate degree and intend to do more formal studies, I am the first to say that university degrees can be valorised; they do not necessarily produce hands-on useful people at all. As he starts office, I find Mr Zuma, with little formal education, turning out (thus far) to be a great leader, more interested in healing rifts, sorting out the real problems, focusing on the best person for the best job. I like the fact that he does not throw stones. Zille does and is his strongest check and balance. Though she runs the danger of too much criticising (especially her pet hate, Malema), it is necessary. She has the credentials to do so, the room to speak, seeing she has done a lot to uplift her constitution in the Western Cape.

And Malema ensures we do not take ourselves too seriously. In fact, ironically, he is healing the bitterness of racism and what that has done to our beloved SA. Oh, I know some will not agree with that, but please substantiate your reasoning.

That’s the good stuff. The bad stuff is that Zuma has got away with what none of us plebs could get away with in terms of his dismissed arms deal trial. That is history and will slowly but surely be forgotten, provided he and his co-elected deliver. On this, I suggested in a previous blog that remorse is strongly linked to evil. One commentator, John Collings, observed that readers and supporters of Zuma/the ANC would find me linking remorse to evil, and then to Zuma, provided he feels no remorse for wrong actions, “outrageous”. So what? As I said in my rejoinder, and here too, I am not looking for a popularity vote. I will say what I honestly believe needs to be said. In my recent “On the idea of evil and Zuma” blog I do not say he is evil. I came up with a definition of evil (which nobody who commented on my definition agreed with, that’s fine) and tested it against a Nazi war criminal character in a movie and against Zuma. I do not think Zuma is an evil person by the end of the blog and my mistake was not to make that clear. My apologies. But in that blog I wonder if he feels remorse, which I still link with evil … and left that open statement for us all to debate. A person without remorse is one small step away from being an evil person.

My definition of evil in “On the idea of evil and Zuma” is that evil is not being able to tell right from wrong or good from bad. As I asked in the commentary, if you don’t agree, then what is a person who cannot tell right from wrong, good from bad? Siobhan disagreed with my definition of evil and wrote a brilliant, off-the-cuff essay on evil. I agree with everything she says, but my definition is an attempt at a short apothegm, not an essay or thesis and I agree the apothegm needs developing (I can’t say “my apothegm” as it is not mine. M Scott Peck uses it in his book on evil, People of the Lie). I want something short, pithy and which can be tested against characters, political or otherwise. In other words, a template. Help me or correct me if you wish with my modified, short definition: Evil people cannot tell right from wrong, or, if they can, they do what is wrong anyway and often with enjoyment.

In closing, I was a bit perturbed by John Collings’ concern about me “outraging” Zuma followers. Because if Zuma feels no remorse he may be evil. That’s absurd. Let’s re-hash what is surely tedious for all of us. Zuma has never been brought to book and was gleeful about it on more than one occasion as he danced with fellow comrades chanting that damnable song which in itself is most disturbing. That suggests someone who knows right from wrong but enjoys getting away with it, not going to trial the way the rest of us Joe Blogs would have to. Again, who cares if the Zuma celebrants are outraged by my remarks? Morals, Mr Collings, morals long before worrying about who is outraged!

Collings’ comment reminds me of that analogy I am sure you all know: the frog in the pot of water. The temperature is very slowly turned up and the frog does not notice. The frog does not know it is slowly dying in the heat. In the same way let us not get to a point where we do not know that that better part of our humanity, a sense of a moral code, is slowly dying, simply because we have got used to the abuse of law and values.