Apparently, one of the subjects of discussion between the two factions of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) about whether or not to press forward with the case against African National Congress president Jacob Zuma was a bizarre debate about how many people would die if the NPA decided to proceed.

The strange part of the debate was that the “anti” faction ­ those who are against the case proceeding ­ somehow came up with the fact that not only would people die, but with an actual number of people who would die. That number is apparently around 200.

Their theory was that millions of ordinary people would be uncontrollably angry about the decision, because of their deep love of the man and their sense of terrible injustice about the hateful way he has been treated.

Consequently, they would spontaneously take to the streets. There would naturally be riots and the destruction of property. All kinds of hell would break loose and the police would be forced to intervene. And then, obviously, people would be killed in the chaos that would ensue.

Who knows whether the estimate is accurate or not, but it strikes me as horribly insidious. Does anybody really know if huge numbers of people truly will be not just upset, but positively riotous, if Zuma’s prosecution goes ahead?

I’m sure many would be angry and upset, but being upset is different from being so furious that you just have to go out and destroy things.

It also implies that anyone in favour of pressing on with the prosecution is totally callous and unfeeling about the human suffering that might result.

Think of those poor innocents caught up in the riotous behaviour of others, it asks you to believe.

And what about the rioters themselves? Naturally, they are not to be held responsible for their actions as they would be overwhelmed by a sense of betrayal and injustice, the argument goes.

The argument unwittingly justifies the brutality that it seeks to use as a basis for its proposition. It proceeds from the premise that the consequences of brutality require the retreat of the law, which is simply preposterous.

Imagine if a popular rapist was able to escape being charged because others might get angry and damage property if he was . It’s hopelessly self-serving.

But it raises a different issue too: why was no consideration given to the number of people who would die if the charges were withdrawn? Why does nobody think that ordinary people will not be uncontrollably angry at what they would see as the obvious destruction of the legal system by a politician who is transparently gaming the system?

Zuma has lost more than 90% of the court actions against him, but still resists standing up in court and proclaiming his innocence. Why does no one think that is a matter about which South Africans would naturally riot?

The answer, I think, lies in the blindfolds that South Africans willingly put on.

It reminds me so much of philosopher Hanna Arendt’s lifelong search for the reasons people amble into evil, without a real consciousness about it.

Late in her career, she introduced a compelling notion, borrowed somewhat from Socrates, of how the process of conscience was a conversation between you and yourself. The point of this solitary dialogue is to try to remain friends with yourself.

Hence, your conscience does not tell you what to do, but operates negatively, since people have to somehow account to themselves for what they do. In certain circumstances, the result is a mass of delusions and self-justificatory obsequiousness.

And so we sleepwalk into the future, summoning up demons like “200 dead” to justify what we wanted to do in the first place.

With acknowledgements to Tim Cohen and Business Day.