05 March 2010 Back to basics By BARNEY MTHOMBOTHI It was Harold Macmillan, the patrician Tory grandee, who, when prime minister, urged his fellow Britons to look up to their bishops, and not to politicians like himself, for moral guidance. Principles are better preached from the pulpit.

Jacob Zuma, our ethically challenged president, has let it be known that he would initiate a national dialogue on what constitutes our moral code. Apparently he said this with a straight face. That must have provoked a few giggles in some quarters. What's concerning, however, is the alacrity with which Catholic bishops jumped at the opportunity to congratulate Zuma on his suggestion. The silence of church leaders of all faiths at Zuma's much-lampooned indiscretions has been deafening. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to speak out in both good and bad times. Otherwise you become nothing but a praise-singer. Zuma's initiative seems like a political ploy. It's an attempt to shield himself or distract attention from his little difficulties. He conflates issues of morality with culture in order, perhaps, to justify his human frailties. Ethics and morals have to do with the practice of right and wrong. They are about personal conduct. It's not so much what you say as what you do; how you carry yourself. Raymond Williams, the renowned expert on the subject, describes culture as one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. Its meaning ranges from the tending of crops or animals, to music, literature, to a total range of activities, norms and ideas of a people at a given time. Culture has often been used to obfuscate or even mislead. Culture, not patriotism, should be the last resort of a scoundrel, methinks. In Africa, we've tended to perceive culture not as current behavioural patterns and processes, but as something that used to happen in days of yore. Thus "our culture" often refers to practices or traditions which used to happen in the past, or which in most cases are no longer in vogue. And so Zuma will defend polygamy or even infidelity on the basis that it's part of his culture. He is in effect telling those who are not of his culture to back off. They not only don't or won't understand his culture, they don't have the right to interfere or pass judg ment on his actions or behaviour. He's trying to quarantine himself from criticism. I suspect that's where Zuma wants to locate the debate or dialogue on morals and ethics. He wants to create a state of non interference in each other's cultures. But morals have nothing to do with culture. They are about right or wrong, good or evil, and that cuts across all cultures. We're a bit disingenuous to claim that we either don't know or don't have a moral code. Even a troop of baboons in the jungle has a moral code to which it adheres religiously. We pick up these etiquettes from family, schools, churches, places of work, sports clubs and all manner of institutions which ultimately make up what we call society. A moral code, or adherence to it, is the glue that holds society together. It tells us, for instance, that it's wrong to steal, to rape, to solicit bribes from arms manufacturers, or to be unfaithful to your wife or wives. Morals or principles often go hand in hand with courage, hence moral courage: the bottle to stand by one's principles, or to speak one's mind. The charge for good moral behaviour cannot be left to politicians because by the very nature of their occupation, they tend to equivocate or even gild the lily. The bishops are letting us down by passing the baton to such a compromised figure. Zuma has failed the moral test. The fact that he's president does not necessarily make him a moral leader. Moral leaders lead by example. There's nothing to debate. We should simply abide by moral norms, which are after all the basis of all societies, including our own.