Attacking rationality: Laura Miti’s response to Sishuwa
By Melicious Chongo(The Mast)
Laura Miti, an eminent Zambian figure, social and human rights activist, and Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa, a highly sound academician and I must say a buff in his field, have recently been in the media, where they have engaged in what can be classified as highly volatile cold war between the two of them.
The dual obviously has a history together. I personally may never really come to know the whole genesis of their sharp public exchanges. But what I understand, at least from face value based on what the public is meant to believe, is that their sharp exchanges are emanating from the ACC debacle.
One ACC board member, Dr O’brian Kaaba, had made quite damming revelations about grand corruption going on within and perpetrated by the very state chambers and individuals that are supposed to be fighting it, the ACC and DEC.
In commenting on the same revelations, Dr Sishuwa had made references to the whistleblower, in this case, Dr Kaaba, which, in the understanding of Laura Miti, were ad hominem comments. And from there, a quite vicious circle of exchanges ensured between the dual.
Now, this is not to be construed as a comment on the matter between Dr Kaaba and SG Muchende; by extension, maybe. Neither am I interested in what motivates Sishuwa in doing or writing what he does, whether monetary or political inclinations, as others have suggested.
I know neither Laura nor Sishuwa on a personal level, but I have followed both of them avidly. They are both sound individuals. That’s why it can be slightly disappointing that they can be engaging in such vicious exchanges publicly, eminent Zambian individuals that they both are. Unknown to them, many young Zambians could be looking up to them for inspiration or other.
What grabbed my attention though is the response from Laura in rebuttal of what she feels ‘ethnic assertions’ about Dr Kaaba from Sishuwa were or are indeed unfair and unacceptable!
The context is that, after making those damming corruption revelations about individuals in the ACC, the Solicitor General, in this case Marshal Muchende, felt his name was unfairly dragged through the mire and sought to sue Kaaba. Just as the public interest was piqued and was eager to see how the case plays out, suddenly and abruptly, the case is discontinued based on consent judgment!
In making comment on the matter, Sishuwa made quite illuminating arguments, deserving appreciation by any well-meaning Zambian, especially in evaluating matters of national interest like corruption. He attempted to proffer possible rational explanations to Kaaba’s possible motivations for withdrawing the case, which included among others, an ethnic consideration.
Among others, this is what amai Laura strongly rebuts saying it is not supported by evidence of Kaaba being motivated by or using ethnic reasons before. “Dressing another in tribal sentiment, where it is not an indisputable consideration, is unacceptable,” she says. She adds that, “to suggest O’Brian entered into the consent judgment in question because he, the SG and the President are Tonga, Sishuwa would have to show that O’Brian has previously and evidently behaved or spoken tribally.”
Key word(s) there: ‘previously’, ‘evidently’, behaved, ‘tribal’……This, I must confess, is quite fascinating! Hearing this, I couldn’t help but begin to wonder about the study of human nature – philosophy, psychology.
I must be quick to say that, what Sishuwa says there deserves everyone’s attention. Dealing with issues of national interest demand that we all bracket aside our assumptions, biases or prejudices. They demand that we all rise above our base human inclinations, and see them as such.
What Sishuwa says there is quite cardinal. Ultimately, what he says boils down to saying that, ‘the difficult conversations we are unwilling to have with each other today – with the people we care and love so deeply about – those conversations are going to be way harder to have tomorrow.’ And very often it is the nation itself that suffers when we skate or shift responsibility!
Now, what is it I find wrong with amai Laura’s stance? I will give only three reasons here.
First is the symbolism of action. Man is so intimately one with culture and reflects it in every aspect. His actions very often reflect culture and are so significantly fraught with meaning beyond just their literal interpretation. These actions can carry significance, both intentionally and unintentionally, and can thus be interpreted in very varying degrees based on context, culture or otherwise.
Not only that, based on Cantian Apriori Philosophy, (Apriori knowledge refers to knowledge that is independent of experience, derived from reason, intuition, or innate ideas), an action can be at once universal, applying everywhere, regardless of context; necessary, which cannot be otherwise and absolute (objective), not dependent on experience or observation.
Perhaps one just needs to stop and ask: what would an all-round philosopher say about what transpired? How would s/he look at it? As I indicated earlier, it’s not my focus here.
Based on the ‘apriori knowledge’ therefore, an action can be subjected to critical, ethical, and philosophical thinking. Man therefore can (and many times s/he does indeed) apply apriori principles to guide decisions, actions or thinking, ensuring they align with universal, necessary and objective values and truths. And among some examples of apriori knowledge we may also include but not limited to metaphysical principles (e.g., causality, identity), beyond just the literal, and ethical principles (e.g., non-maleficence, beneficence).
The Kaaba-Muchende-corruption issue underscores the place of ethical principles in our lives. Besides, on a metaphysical level, the issue underscores the Latin dictum “Agere sequitur esse”. Actions follow being and help to explain being. This is to further signify that man is a sum of his actions; he is indeed the author of his actions. And we can only come closer to some understanding of him through his actions.
The expression ‘Agere sequitur esse’ does indeed highlight a very fundamental relationship between existence (being or reality) and reasoning (argument). It suggests that our understanding of reality (esse) precedes and informs our ability to act, reason or argue (agere). In other words, we must first acknowledge and understand the existence of something before we can develop arguments or reasoning about it.
So an action (agree) was there, which therefore formed (or framed) reality (esse). This action was performed within a specific context, culture, background or circumstances, by a sentient being. How are we to evaluate that action? I don’t know; but for what I know is that the bitter truth is that, unfortunately, public people cannot be separated from their words and actions – they carry with them their actions wherever they go!
The expression goes to emphasise the priority of existence over reasoning, underscoring the importance of understanding the nature of reality before developing philosophical arguments. It highlights the role of existence in shaping our knowledge and understanding, suggesting that our reasoning is grounded in our experience of reality. It reminds us that sound reasoning must be based on a clear understanding of the subject matter, rather than relying solely on abstract arguments. In essence, it serves as a potent reminder to ground our reasoning in a deep understanding of existence and reality, ensuring that our arguments are informed, nuanced, and meaningful.
Thus, apriori knowledge helps us develop a deeper understanding of fundamental principles and truths, and improve critical, ethical, philosophical thinking and problem-solving skills. Now, our knowledge, arguments or reasoning per se cannot be grounded in the absence of reality, much less by ignoring or repudiating it altogether!
Man does not become better, let alone does Zambia become any better by denying or ignoring reality, in this case the ethnic/tribal reality. We do not become loving of each other as Zambians, nor do we build national unity by not talking about the very reality that divides us. Creating so much love or unity is not an auto process! We all have to be intentional.
My third and last point from which to view Laura’s position is the deep human psychology point of view. Human nature is quite complex and dynamic. It is also fascinating to study. In his “Thinking Fast and Slow”, Daniel Kahneman offers yet another penetrating understanding of how to evaluate man’s actions. Kahneman believes man is actually more irrational than we have commonly believed. In exploring the different cognitive mind traps, assumptions, biases or fallacies, he explains how so often people think they are in total control of their decisions, thoughts, and actions without realising how we are infact very often guided and influenced by something else – usually some deep seated biases that we do not even notice occurring deep in our mind.
Ethnic biases among others are something that remains deeply seated in all of us, subtly influencing our actions, even when we don’t realise it or may try to deny or suppress it! It is very poignantly part of us – a significant part of us making the most of who we are. And so for me, to face it, is actually part of trying to heal ourselves of its menacing effects of not doing so. It is one of the powerful ways to forge national unity we so erroneously try to think we can build by choosing to be convenient about it.
Escaping into convenient arguments does not make a reality disappear. While an empirical historical dimension is also important in evaluating people’s actions, it is not exhaustive. Laura’s rebuttal fails to appreciate all these aspects. She is essentially attacking rationality in offering a one-sided evaluation of issues here, particularly sentimental, convenient considerations. Zambia will perish, other than for other things, but also for our stubborn and arrogant refusal to confront the uncofronted – for continually playing it safe in the face of some conversations. It will perish for our unhealthy posture of deciding to go to bed with convenience, and attacking reason under the guise of convenience.
In my view therefore, if ever any blame is to be apportioned, we all have to take the blame, not so much for what we have erroneously thought the bad ethnic issue in Zambia is for the stance we have taken about it, than it is for the convenience and collective silence about it. We have all behaved tribal, ranging from some petty remarks like, “where do you hail?”, “which part of Zambia is this name?”, or “what is your surname?” to denying some (indeed very many) people today employments based on the names they bear, and to some even more complex and systemic tribal phenomena.
The elites specially have been to blame. In their arrogance of wealth and power, and in their intellectual arrogance, they have made everyone believe that being “convenient about the tribal issue” is the only way to deal with it. For very long time now, we have traded Zambia’s progress and prosperity with convenience. I find the narrative to cajole everyone into silence about commenting on politics, especially in social media platforms, belong together with this narrative of convenience and silence, and to quickly label anyone talking ethnic issues. Either way is betray to the nation. To remain silent and to be puritanical about ethnic considerations is still betrayal.
“NOT JUST EDUCATION, BUT EDUCATION FOR RELEVANCE.”
Email: melicious2009@gmail.com, phone 0979-549033.
