Two-world paradigm

The first time our geology lecturer brought up the big bang theory - the scientific theory, not the sitcom - he unintentionally ruffled a few feathers. Matters were made worse when, a few weeks later, he introduced evolution. Eventually, the religious students in the class began screaming at him.

They told him that the widely accepted scientific theory went against the Book of Genesis and everything they believed in. Others said they were in the class to study rocks - not to be told their beloved ancestors used to be monkeys, and walked out.

On many occasions during my two-year stint studying geology, I witnessed the internal struggles young scientists dealt with when confronted with information that was in opposition to their religious and cultural belief systems.

The fact that we were studying science didn't mean we were on the same page about how we understood our new subject.

That is analogous to how our chattering classes often and erroneously assume that the primary reason people don't understand a topical issue such as corruption is a lack of an education. We often hear - and say - "if the masses were educated, they would get this or that". When it comes to the interpretation of facts, however, it is not only education that influences how that information is regarded and accepted.

Upon reading the Sunday Times's latest exposé on how President Jacob Zuma inexplicably escaped prosecution when the NPA had built up a strong case against him, I thought: "Here's more preaching to the converted," - much like teaching the big bang theory to atheists.

Our growing frustration with Zuma's supporters shows that we simply have not bothered to understand how other people view the world.

When the president graces traditional leaders and South Africa's rural folk and speaks of "white people's laws", he is hinting at that disconnect.

In order for anyone to deem Zuma's behaviour as untoward, s/he views the president's actions through the prism of her/his norms, which are used to judge him.

When people don't find fault with Zuma's behaviour, however, we can't simply dismiss them as uneducated. Those people could be disgruntled with the institutions that define and enforce our rules.

Do the president's supporters readily submit to all the institutions and laws that govern South Africa? Simply put, are we all on the same page or, like my Christian classmates, do we use conventional logic, as taught to us in the schooling system, to navigate our way through society, without ever believing in it?

When our constitution was adopted, the government invested a significant effort in educating the public about the document and gave considerable focus to the Bill of Rights. Every boy and girl in my neighbourhood had a copy of the booklet. I don't remember ever reading it. But the point of that campaign was not for everyone to memorise every word in the constitution - it was to educate and build trust. Today we trust in the constitution, and differentiate it from personal beliefs. But it doesn't resonate with everyone.

Throwing facts at people whose subjectivity is informed by different norms doesn't help - trying to change them will also not help. If we are truly to translate the gravity of the accusations being levelled at the president, we must speak to the things that are important to those who have different belief systems and moral compasses, not in the language of the accuser.

In the long run, all South Africans should share and believe in a common social contract.