Harare — IT is a common belief that when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, ostriches -- which have the distinction of having eyes bigger than their brains -- tend to bury their heads in the sand so that they do not see the approaching danger.

The story, however, is a controversial one, with some claiming that it is just a myth.

But the story forms the gist of denial, what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance".

Leon Festinger is a well-known proponent of this and explains that there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their beliefs and opinions such that whenever there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviours (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.

It is all about finding the easy, albeit futile, way of wanting out of a problem.

Festinger suggests that some ways to eliminate the dissonant or discordant reality are reducing the importance of the dissonant beliefs, adding more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or changing the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.

In a paper called "The many forms of denial" Frederick Mann calls this the "Unreality Imperative," which he says is "the strong urge to distort or deny aspects of reality -- creating and/or accepting "unreal beliefs" -- because confronting them and seeing certain aspects of reality for what they are is considered too "uncomfortable," "threatening," or "painful".

He recommends two important and relevant books Wings of Illusion and The Corruption of Reality by John Shumaker whose basic thesis is that certain aspects of reality are unpalatable to human consciousness/intelligence.

To cope with this, humans have developed a "counter-intelligence" that enables us to escape harsh reality with unreal beliefs.

Critically, he points out that political language and belief belongs to this "counter-intelligent" unreality domain.

Ostrich or Harvest House

We know that when confronted with the important reality of the sanctions that they courted from their Western friends, MDC-T always finds refuge in their wings of illusion.

But sometimes we are rather taken aback by the party's counter-intelligence -- pun intended -- and insensitivity.

This goes without saying that Tsvangirai himself is the chief master of the art of counter-intelligence, having yet not brought himself comfortably mention the word "sanctions" while his mouthpiece, James Maridadi, even says he does not know they ever exist.

Following an anti-sanctions demo in Harare on Wednesday the party said on a web outfit that it condemned "as cheap grand-standing today's so-called demonstration in Harare by hired Zanu-PF youths on petty issues which have nothing to do with the daily challenges facing the people of Zimbabwe".

There were more pressing issues affecting the people such as food, jobs, health, education and the power black-outs which have seriously affected ordinary residents and silenced our factories, we were told.

The people want Zanu-PF to abide by the Global Political Agreement, not to engage in shameful acts of grandstanding disguised as "demonstrations", the party pontificated.

This is perhaps a good template of a cheap and shameful act of denial.

It is quite surprising that MDC-T can try to separate the everyday problems people are facing from the effects of the ruinous sanctions. It's shocking that the party has the temerity to mention the GPA and go on to describe sanctions as a "petty issue".

It is well-known that in that misnamed agreement called the Global Political Agreement signed on September 15, 2008, by Zanu-PF, MDC-T and the MDC recognised that sanctions, in all their guises, should go.

The sanctions are chiefly behind all the ills in food, jobs, health, education and the power black-outs which have seriously affected ordinary residents and silenced our factories.

Tsvangirai's signature on the GPA affirms such, or doesn't have the head to understand it?

If sanctions were such a "petty issue" why would the whole EU, which renewed them recently, sit and discuss them, including removing dead people from the list?

The EU has sanctioned scores of companies from all the important sectors of the economy and the duplicity of a party that purports to represent national interests in calling sanctions a petty issue is quite sickening, if not treacherous and treasonous.

We applaud President Jacob Zuma's decision to take on Britain on the suffocating sanctions, which are affecting not only the " hired urchins", as the MDC-T snobbishly called the marchers on Wednesday but everyone including the party's supporters.

Theology of aid

While one might be tempted to welcome the vibes coming from the West, namely the token removal of certain companies from the sanctions list and the reengagement with IMF where Zimbabwe's voting and related rights were restored, Western manipulation cannot be ignored.

We are strongly reminded of what Robert Cooper, former chief policy advisor to Blair called "new liberal imperialism" characterised by double standards and doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which would place limits on state sovereignty.

In a 2002 essay Cooper revealed that the likes of IMF and World Bank were critical actors in this "post-modern imperialism".

"These institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity," he said.

"In return," he added, "they make demands, which, they hope, address the political, and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance. Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance."

He also said: "If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international organisations and foreign states."

Given that some circles in Zimbabwe predicate the country's much hoped-for recovery on the West and the subsequent demands they have made in a situation they have created anyway, Cooper's doctrine, is quite evidently at play.

And in that sense, the European Union can even pretend they support the GPA reform agenda, even when we know they do not support it anyway, for pretty obvious reasons.

Much Tudor about nothing

For all the talk about the so-called replica of the "lost ark of Covenant" that was unveiled recently, we take great note of what Brother Ken had to say of Professor Tudor Parfitt, the fellow who said he had discovered the antique.

"Apparently courting disaster and notoriety," Brother Ken said of Parfitt, "he cursed out Mukuru in Zimbabwe accusing him of personalising the Ngoma Lungundu . . . a little time in General Zimondi's prison and an outcry from the British Embassy would have served his purpose very well."

He described Parfitt as a loudmouth with silly ideas and a charlatan.

That has been the curse of some of the professors we otherwise might want to look up to.

It would seem Parfitt has taken a leaf from the likes of John Makumbe whose claim to fame is not the quality of his academic exploits but churning out vitriol against President Mugabe.

And with some legitimate questions being asked about the Ark, Parfitt must prove he is better than the likes of Makumbe of the School of Vitriol and Publicity Mongering.