That Zimbabwe is one of the problem children of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is not in doubt. It’s also beyond question that, despite this dubious honour, leaders of the bloc’s member countries are superfast to close ranks behind their counterparts in Harare whenever criticism is levelled against them by opponents within the country and beyond this continent’s shores.

With general elections due in Zimbabwe in a few months – most likely in August – a lot of criticism will surely go the way of the country’s governing party, Zanu-PF. This will range from barbs from political opponents on the campaign trail as they attempt to capitalise on Zanu-PF’s failings during the past 43 years to more sober analyses of the party’s performance by pundits. As has been the case over the years, the retort will be that at the core of Zimbabwe’s woes are “illegal” sanctions imposed by Western nations.

I have said it before in this column – Zimbabwe was already experiencing financial strain a couple of years before the imposition of the sanctions by the US and the European Union in 2001. As those with a more than fleeting interest in Zimbabwe’s history would recall, the late President Robert Mugabe deployed nearly a third of the country’s army in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1998 to help his allies there ward off a daring insurrection. A year earlier, he had been arm-twisted by veterans of the country’s 1970s liberation war to pay each of them the princely sum of Z$50 000. Back then, this was worth more than R50 000 – and there were more than 50 000 veterans. The burden of this unbudgeted expenditure was simply too heavy on the fiscus. Very soon, the Zanu-PF government was having run-ins with key external financiers, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

But Zanu-PF’s sanctions-blaming line found traction in SADC capitals, with many Presidents from the regional bloc having publicly scolded the Americans and the Europeans for the sanctions.

Could this be a case of what experts in decision-making call bounded awareness, where someone clearly doesn’t get something (without realising it, of course) resulting in the wrong decisions being made?

Surely, the SADC leaders would not continue to side with their counterparts in Zimbabwe if they knew about the malfeasance by those in government and politically connected private individuals that was recently exposed by Qatari television station Al Jazeera. But no, as far as they are concerned, it is the evil West that is to blame for the disaster that Zimbabwe has become.

Bounded awareness comes about when you believe that your judgment is 100% correct, that you are in control of the situation confronting you and that you are always the cream of the crop. Those who suffer from this affliction don’t see the need to solicit others’ perspectives. I’m sure a short, frank meeting with opposition parties and other stakeholders in Zimbabwe would expose Zanu-PF for what is it – the root cause of all that is wrong in that country.

But I won’t be putting any money on such a meeting taking place. The bounded awareness will continue. Zanu-PF will “win” the next elections and fraternal congratulatory messages will be sent from every capital in the region.

But, as is often the case with bounded awareness, there will be consequences. More Zimbabweans will vote with their feet and make a beeline for neighbouring countries, many of which are barely able to cater for their own citizens.

If only SADC leaders could recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi, who said: “It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom.” It’s not wise to listen to Zanu-PF only; they must consider other voices as well.