Minding Your Language

Putting a few words together is never easy. Even at the best of times and in the best hands words come only with difficulty. Stringing them together to express a thought coherently sometimes feels like herding cats.

But we do not live in the best times; and things are not even normal. Just by the mere act of thinking an idea puts one on a collision course with the thought-control police. And actually verbalizing a thought openly could well expose one to the charge of purveying “Fake News”, a term beloved of the current leader of the Free World.

Thus, anyone playing with words or trying to use them, in these near-dystopian times also plays with fire. This applies not just to the amateur but, as well, to the professional who makes a living using words as an everyday commodity, contributing to or putting together a newspaper or magazine, whether print or digital. The living that such an individual makes depends on how much credibility their organization has. People who buy or “consume” the product do so with the confidence that they are getting a genuine article, the real deal. If the product is wanting or faulty, it loses value and likely, market share as well, just as any other commodity or service would in the marketplace. Definitely “not good”, as Mr Trump would say. Consequently, our conscientious dealer in words has to be sure that their source is impeccable and that any of their ideas or opinions are well-founded. Even so, the accusation of “fake news” can be quite destructive and difficult to shake, descending into a question of “he said, she said”...

Fair enough, you might be prepared to concede and then roll up your sleeves and join the rough and tumble in the market place of ideas. But it seems the rules have changed even more profoundly. In recent days and indeed, as we speak, we hear that the Trump administration has signalled prohibition on the use of certain words. To communicate with, not only his highness the President, but with his courtiers too, certain words are to be avoided. We hear, for example, that, to speak to authority, the CDC is having to mind its p’s and q’s and avoid certain words in order to maintain ideological purity. Now, the CDC, the Centres for Disease Control of America is one of that nation’s most venerable institutions. It is a department of the US government that has, over many years sought to find ways and means of controlling the spread of diseases in the country. And, as would be obvious to anyone, controlling disease in one country also means that spread to the rest of the world is curbed. This is critically important work that benefits all. The CDC tackles other diseases and conditions as well: if it afflicts humanity, they are there to reduce the potential impact. They collect the data; they study the human condition, from fetus to the grave, and their findings provide the evidence that is needed to make policy and guide decisions about best practice in prevention and control.

To get their message to us, the general public, and to those who provide the money for their work, the CDC have to use plain language, the kind of language that we all can understand; like “evidence”, “science-based”, “fetus”, “diversity”, “entitlement”, etc. But now, we hear, they have to avoid using words such as these for fear of annoying someone in authority. I should say though, that I myself have not seen the original story of this new word-avoidance strategy, reportedly published by the The Washington Post, newspaper. Rather paradoxical. The Post’s paywall bars me from reading their story, a move that introduces another layer of irony into a landscape that is already riddled with ironies. True, there are no free lunches and The Post is not obliged to hand me a freebie, even though it’s almost Christmas and though they are making a point about impediments to information flow, about which they and we are supposed to care.

But hey, this is the season of goodwill to all men (and women too) and I, for one, will not stint words in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a 2018 that is free of pestilence and other distempers.

Tell Fren Tru

Zimbabwe: The Long Night Ends

The opening act in the world’s longest-running coup drama has come to an end, just a few paces removed from where it all started. Perhaps what saved the entire process from dissolving into a bedroom farce was the absence of the chief female interest, Grace Mugabe. Luckily, the action remained firmly in the public arena where an elderly, now-isolated despot was seen desperately trying to cling to power. Eventually, someone convinced him that the game was up and that there was no other dignified option but for him to submit his resignation letter.

The constitutional shenanigans that enabled this coup by another name are OK by me, but what bemuses me the most is the hypocrisy of it all. Everyone knows that the membership of ZANU-PF has been the facilitator of the processes that made Zimbabwe an impossible place to live in. And this is not just me saying so. The wide diaspora of Zimbabweans living all over the world, particularly in the neighbouring SADEC countries is testament enough. Zimbabweans who have stuck it out inside the country have had to be very careful to avoid the crushing jaws of the man  they call “The Crocodile” and who now stands ready to preside over the country. I hope I am wrong, but how can a crocodile change its spots overnight, to mix my metaphors? Mr Emmerson Mnangagwa is unlikely to become a model citizen-president overnight, just because he no longer has Robert Mugabe pulling his strings. Or Mrs Mugabe yanking them, for that matter.

What needs to happen in Zim now is pretty obvious. Zimbabweans have to find a way of getting their government party to deliver prosperity for them in an environment where they are free from harassment. Is ZANU-PF the party to do so? This is the party that the people ostensibly supported against themselves during the dark days of the Mugabe reign of terror. I say ostensible because I don’t really know how the system worked. Were threats delivered? Or were threats of actual bodily harm combined with inducements, thrown in the direction of just key people or spread around more randomly throughout the country? Or indeed, did the the inflicting of actual physical harm, including beatings, imprisonment and torture take place?

Whatever the case, there are lessons to be learned because there are at least 20 other countries in Africa today, this hour and this very minute, where leaders and their parties are virtually permanently installed, oppressing people and grinding their economies into the ground. Evidence for this can be seen in the droves who risk life and limb across the Sahara and Mediterranean to escape to Europe. And yet, some of us are quick to praise and defend them against critics, howling some rubbish about “neo-colonialist” and “imperialist” or “slavish” impulses that are trying to “undermine sovereignty” or “destabilize” independence.

Nonsense.  We Africans must have the courage to look at budding dictatorships in the eye and call them for what they are and nip them in the bud when they are still not so dangerous. After all, dictators are never fully formed. They have their beginnings when they are not so dangerous and frightening.  And we must stop protecting them because, if given the latitude, they will turn on the very people who elected them or gave them permission to govern. We must have the courage and the good sense to snuff them out at the earliest indication that they are getting out of hand.

The Zimbabwe drama has many acts to play yet. The people of Zimbabwe remain the principal players; let's make no mistake about that. This is their chance not only to rewrite the script, but to take the play in a whole new direction.

Tell Fren Tru

 

Slumming it

I can’t get this out of my mind.

A Slum quarter in Freetown

The last time I wrote, it was immediately after the latest “natural” disaster that had befallen Sierra Leone, in which untold numbers lost their lives. Up to this day, the precise casualty figure has not been determined.

The first lesson we learn from the tragedy is that when things go wrong it is the poor who cop it. They not only just die; they also lose identity as well. There is nobody to account for them or advocate on their behalf. As their corporal remains are washed away or consumed by fire, their humanity itself is not only diminished but is frequently erased entirely. Another recent example of this kind of erasure is the Grenfell Tower fire in London last June. In that disaster too, many victims remain unnamed and uncounted.

          And, as if to manage our guilt-ridden conscience for our failure to recognize lives lost or diminished, we quickly assume a posture of blaming the victims for what has befallen them. I cannot absolve myself from this failing, as a reading of my last posting amply demonstrates. Since that posting, however, I have had time to reflect on the predicament of those who live in the precarious margins, not out of choice, but of necessity. However, I cannot extend this admission of mea culpa to what I feel for the rich man sitting in his villa perched on the same hillside as the slum dweller whose abode was a shack in the same neighbourhood. That rich man had, and has, at his disposal, choices, including the benefit of expert advice that should have informed him of the foolishness of building where he did. Rather, it would appear, he ignored good, sensible engineering and environmental advice and went ahead and did what he did. He may have been a denier of facts, who might have interpreted attempts at dissuading him from doing something stupid as an instance of “fake news” and who, at the end of the day, probably congratulated himself on succeeding to manouvre his way around those pesky rules and regulations that inconvenience ordinary mortals. Similar to avoiding paying tax, as some openly brag.

          But what about the poor? When I wrote last, I dumped all those affected into a single basket of deplorables. Yes, the poor’s lack of foresight is to be deprecated. But how did they get to where they did? Sierra Leone has seen a number of upheavals, the most severe and enduring of which was the 10-year civil war that ended more than a decade ago. That war displaced tens of thousands, the majority of whom ended up in and around the capital, Freetown, seeking safety. And there they have remained, eking out a life of sorts, but building communities nevertheless. While doing so, they did things to the environment that unwittingly put their own existence and wellbeing at risk. What is certain is that those living hanging by the mountainside or in the path of an unstable land mass, or along a coastal strip, are bound to become victims again. And again, and again... Until and unless something is done.

          We demand that poor people living in these hazardous locations be moved elsewhere by whatever means, including by force, if necessary. However, an enterprise such as that is bound to fail if the new destinations provide no opportunities for productive employment and community-building. But we don’t pause to ask the important questions as to where the resources to pay the rent and maintenance will come from. Money will be required to pay for life in the new homes. Money for rent, money for maintenance, money for utilities (if the environment is to be protected). It would be lovely if this money could fall from the sky. But we all know that there is no money tree, especially in a country where it is estimated that over 70% of people have to live on less than a dollar a day.

        

Like someone said: “It’s the economy, my friend”.

Tell Fren Tru