Dearth in empathy and politics in Zimbabwe

Truly constructive politics is a by-product of emotional response; it is about placing feelings in decision-making; precisely, it is the ability to empathise with others’ positions on issues and interrogating our biases. We may not agree with everything others have to say or stand for, but that should not stop us investing effort to listen, understand and relate with their experience and views. For without a sense of empathy, we cannot begin to understand what needs to be addressed.

It is important to understand how humans process information presented to them for decision-making purposes. We will refer to the Dual Process Theory; according to the theory, human thinking and decision-making involve two distinct systems: System 1 (intuitive – fast and emotional) and System 2 (analytical – slow and rational). The theory suggests that System 1 is used for rapid, automatic judgments, while System 2 is used for more deliberate and effortful reasoning. 

Quite clearly, both systems are essential in leadership and the most capable leaders would be those who can ably engage a combination of both systems in their decision-making. For instance, System 1 might be used to quickly filter information after which System 2 is engaged to make a more reasoned judgment. 

Post-independence politics in Zimbabwe is a far cry from public dreams of independence; it effectively lost its way in the early 1980s when, due to Robert Mugabe’s obsession with power, dominance, order, and control, ZANU PF (which under his leadership had consistently politicised tribe) purposefully withdrew empathy in all its engagements with people from Matabeleland and Matabeleland circumstances.

Instead of dealing with genuine safety concerns which affected both white farmers and black neighbourhoods, the regime hijacked the security problems in the region turning them into an opportune moment to politicize its hatred of Ndebele people to terrorise civilians.  

ZANU PF sought to maintain order at all costs; more importantly, Mugabe’s government was eager to demonstrate and reassure its British sponsors of its commitment to ensuring the safety of white farmers. It sought to achieve that without paying due regard to Matabeleland people’s economic and political safety.

Under the guise of eradicating dissidents and security threat posed by what was essentially a few armed criminals in the region, Robert Mugabe’s government crossed all imaginable boundaries of human decency; it turned unarmed civilians in Matabeleland into collateral damage in its indiscriminate attempts at combing out ‘dissidents’. It inflicted the worst abuses of humans by other humans – women and mothers were routinely raped in front of their powerless husbands and distraught children, unborn babies ripped out of their mothers’ wombs and murdered, and young and old men shot at point blank in front of their families.

Experience teaches us that where there is dearth in empathy in politics, there is a disconnect between government policy and the governed. Significantly, there is polarisation of communities where certain communities may be unjustly targeted for discrimination and space for engagement constricted as people dig in deep in their positions without neither the desire nor motivation to objectively listen to alternative views.

There is a justified sense of injustice among Ndebele people in the post-colonial Zimbabwe and a sense of marginalisation and resentment in Matabeleland. The public is aggrieved that policy in the post-colonial Zimbabwe does not serve their interests, but it purposefully withdraws rights from them while extending favour to Mashonaland and ethnic Shona people.

Successful political engagement requires a high degree of empathy that takes politics away from being just about jostling for positions, dominance, and power to being a vital tool for human connection and growth. We argue that lack of empathy in politics and policy making has led to structural inequalities and inadequacies that have impeded communities from achieving their full potential.

As alluded to above, politics is about people, and to succeed, one must understand their needs and dreams. Progressive politics requires politicians to reconnect with their empathic reserve in their dealings with other human beings.

For a long time, the importance of empathy in political circles has been de-emphasised and ignored because people associated it with agreement, yet an effective political leader can empathise with others without agreeing with their position. Empathy is about understanding, not agreement.

Certainly, to be empathetic is not to lose one’s core values, but to put one in another’s shoe, try and understand their positional perspectives. We need to be able to appreciate others’ views and reflect on our biases to make objective and progressive policy decisions.

Listening to other people critic our ideological location may be uncomfortable at times, but the purpose of debate is not to be comfortable, it is to be able to share and seek new knowledge through interaction with those who see the world differently. We must not shy away from being challenged, we must be prepared to question and to be questioned.