When motives matter more than message

Editorial Comment
People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care I was reminded of this sentiment when I read the The Standard editorial comment in this week’s issue berating civil society organisations (CSOs) for denouncing the ongoing demolitions of illegal structures.

IT is said that people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care and I was reminded of this sentiment when I read the The Standard editorial comment in this week’s issue berating civil society organisations (CSOs) for denouncing the ongoing demolitions of illegal structures. Delta Milayo Ndou

The comment expressed suspicion at the motives of the CSOs. Having insinuated that the CSOs were insincere, the comment all but dismissed entirely, and perhaps with insufficient scrutiny, any and all of the valid concerns that the CSOs had raised in at least two statements, which were conveniently provided on Page 12 under the Letters to the Editor section.

By questioning the motives of the CSOs with regards the stance they had chosen to take on the issue of demolitions, the comment managed to obscure and even invalidate any contribution that the CSOs were making to the debate around demolitions – and it is this disinclination to engage with the ideas that the CSOs were bringing to the table that caused me some discomfiture.

My discomfiture arose from the fact that I like to engage with ideas — even disagreeable ones — yet the dismissive tone of the editorial comment precluded such an exercise by contending that CSOs were motivated by greed, self-interest and it implied that the CSOs’ perspective on the demolition issue (and perhaps any other issue) was neither sincere nor worth interrogating.

The issue of whether or not the CSOs had raised any worthwhile points or advanced any valid ideas on how best to handle the problem of illegal structures was not even raised because the CSOs’ motives were viewed with scepticism and considerable disdain.

If anything, the tone and approach of the editorial comment proved that one’s perceived motives can matter more than one’s message because motives determine the credibility of the message and motives speak to the integrity of the one conveying the message.

If people don’t trust your motives, they will not trust your message and the credibility and integrity of the CSO sector has over the years taken a severe pasting, mostly at the hands of State-controlled media advancing a Zanu PF narrative that framed CSOs as traitors or puppets of the West and enemies of the State.

The average Zimbabwean would be hard-pressed to say a single positive thing about CSOs as a collective because at the height of the economic meltdown, urban folklore held that forming a non-governmental organisation was the fastest way to make money and the commercialisation of the country’s myriad problems ostensibly became normative.

The problem is not that these narratives or stereotypes about CSOs exist. The problem, in my view, is that CSOs have done little, if anything, to rebut these claims.

Perhaps this is because CSOs believe their work will “speak for itself”, which would be rather naïve.

What is certain is that if CSOs do not begin addressing the issue of their dented credibility as a sector it won’t matter what the sector brings to the national discourse because any ideas from them will be treated as fruits of the poisoned tree.

What is also certain is that if CSOs do not take up opportunities afforded them by editorial comments — such as the one carried in The Standard and even the recent comment by Nathaniel Manheru carried in The Herald which referenced and attacked Thabani Nyoni as an individual, but scathingly indicted the CSO sector as a collective – to tell their side of the story, these damaging negative perceptions will continue to haunt them.

The need for a CSO counter-narrative or rebuttal cannot be overemphasised especially against the reality of the government controlled by the Zanu PF party which the sector has had an antagonistic relationship with.

While many in the CSO sector have argued that repressive laws in the country have created a hostile operating environment which has seen many CSO leaders and actors being harassed, arrested or taken to court on spurious charges (most of which are later dropped) – they have not dealt with the issue of how the public perceives them as a collective.

They have not dealt with the issue of how those negative public perceptions have significantly hindered their work and/or increased their vulnerability to unwarranted attacks.

It is common cause that the dented credibility of CSOs can be traced back to various dynamics in the country including the sector’s embeddedness with opposition politics, its reliance on foreign funding and by extension its perceived susceptibility to foreign influence.

Sometimes, motives matter more than the message and the Zimbabwean public largely does not trust the motives of CSOs, neither do other non-State actors.

Motives matter. Stereotypes abound with regards the nature of CSOs’ work as they are often viewed as being greedy, unscrupulous and self-aggrandising non-State actors who earn a living through hijacking the legitimate grievances of the populace and trading in the pornography of pity politics to get money from donors.

This is the dominant narrative. Motives matter and CSOs need to begin defending with fervency and sincerity their work and its legitimacy. But that’s just me. And I could be wrong. We can always agree to disagree.

 Delta Milayo Ndou is a journalist, writer, activist and blogger