admin
when it looks like we are, for lack of better terms, semantically challenged; and, when a nation divides itself over terms that are not even part of its mother language!
In the acknowledgement to the aforesaid publication, The Tyranny of Words, Stuart Chase says, “Is it possible to explain words with words? Can some of the reasons why it is so difficult for us to communicate with one another by means of language be set forth in that same faulty medium? . . . I believe it worries every person who thinks about language at all. Does B know what A is talking about? Does A himself know clearly what he is talking about? How often do minds meet; how often do they completely miss each other? How many of the world’s misfortunes are due to such misses?”
As someone interested in languages and how they affect the way people relate to each other, the feeling I got is that human communication can be a jungle of words that needs a common understanding in order for peace to prevail.
Development cannot take place if and when we seem not to be in agreement.
The other element to critique is why we have languages but fail to communicate for the common good and/or when we use language tools in retrogressive actions.
It is the last bit in Chase’s observation that fascinates me, for just recently, the whole Zimbabwean psyche has been forced to focus on two terms whose etymology and meanings are as old as creation itself.
These are words that are also regularly used in various contexts, but whose meanings have recently been changed or twisted through meetings attended by very few people.
The terms are: “note(d)” and “endorse(d)”.
The ensuing debate is staple diet for academics, but is it the same for all of us, who are meant to benefit from the terms within the contexts in which they were said?
Maybe a bit of historical context is necessary. First, we had the Frontline States, followed by the Southern African Development Community Conference, which is now the Southern African Development Community.
Issues in the 14-member Sadc bloc are the reason why the bloc exists in the first place, and this is why the leaderships of these nation States meet so often; and, this is also why the meetings are not held in an ad hoc manner since the activities of the bloc are administered by a secretariat approved of by all member states.
Since the days of the Frontline States, they have been taking “note” of whatever issue is deliberated on, and in some cases they took decisions: endorsing, resolving, recommending, charging, following up, etc.
We ask why these semantic challenges are arising now on matters related to Zimbabwe, especially issues regarding the relationship between Zanu-PF and MDC formations? Is someone spawning this?
When I realised that this was an issue that would not die down easily, I resorted to what I know best, “If the Queen’s language is too difficult for us, how are these terms expressed in the vernacular languages of all 14 Sadc member States because, the leadership that was at the meetings that noted and endorsed are answerable to the people.
They must have a way of expressing these terms to the people they represented in the languages they understand best, unless if people are saying that the whole Sadc region is now English-speaking, which would render the semantic argument useless.
Coming closer home, how for example, are the Zanu-PF and MDC formation leaderships explaining this storm in a tea cup to their supporters if at all it is worth it?
Will they continue to use “noted” and/or “endorsed” when we claim to have languages with a rich vocabulary?
But, what is very saddening is when political games are played on the people in such a manner, making them look like they don’t understand how meetings are conducted. Most of these terms are institutionalised, so why the fuss?
Many ordinary people are members of some groupings like church organisations, burial societies and/or housing cooperatives where they note, endorse, resolve and/or recommend decisions, etc.
So, why should acres of space be devoted to explaining these terms as used at the meetings in Livingstone and Sandton when the communiqués are available to allow people to draw their own conclusions? Why should it be necessary to seek clarity on how the terms were used from Ms Lindiwe Zulu, President Jacob Zuma’s spokesperson to the facilitation team, when the communiqués are there for all to see?
In another issue when I said that time in Africa is elastic – stretching far and wide and that there is also no hurry in Africa, this is exactly what I was referring to. We have a penchant of wasting time on trivialities.
While we tear our hairs with terms that do not even belong to our lingua franca, someone somewhere is taking advantage of the so-called debate.
The communiqué was issued, and where things were noted, it clearly says so.
Where endorsements were made, it also says so because that communiqué is the official document released by the Sadc Heads of State at the end of the Summit in Sandton, South Africa.
They released another one in Windhoek, and another in Livingstone, Zambia.
And they have been doing so since time immemorial.
Should “note” and “endorse” therefore assume meanings that are in line with political ideologies, ideologies that are not in tandem with Sadc?
This trend started a decade ago when terms started to mean something contrary to the original meanings that people were accustomed to.
A good example is democracy.
As I pondered on the meaning (out of context) of the name Movement for Democratic Change, the conclusion I arrived at is that it is a movement that acknowledges the existence of democratic systems, but because it does not ascribe to such democratic tenets, it wishes to change them, which would mean that we have more than one form of democratic value.
And, we are all supposed to accept that without question?
The same with national hero Cde Edgar Tekere’s Zimbabwe Unity Movement, created to challenge the idea of a none party state when it was formed. A careful analysis of this name will actually show that ZUM means a total unification of Zimbabweans. And, what would have been the net result – a one party state? And, did people realise that then?
This wild goose chase has been oblivious to Zanu-PF when they are made to spend precious time debating terms that emanate from God knows where, when bread and butter issues beckon.
The term “sanctions” goes down in the annals of history as a word that has a unique meaning or inference only in Zimbabwe.
As a result, the very people suffering as a result of the imposition of sanctions have been hoodwinked into believing that these are restrictive measures and/or targeted sanctions only meant for a few individuals in a country with a population of 13million people.
You hear people making spirited arguments on why we should blame it on sanctions when unemployment is reaching record levels, and you wonder, whatever has happened to critical analysis?
Zanu-PF, the party that fought for the liberation of this country is also made to waste precious developmental time engaging in semantics as if these were the tools that fought the struggle.
I am not getting confused, but if they had not made land the major issue at the Lancaster House Conference, would there have been any breakthrough?
If they had wasted time engaging in useless debates with the enemy, would Zimbabwe be free, and the whole region indeed?
The way I see it, the MDC-T has seen that the best way to waste the people’s time is to come up with all sorts of fancy terms authored by some unknown individuals, but whose agenda on Zimbabwe is quite well known – regime change.
The world of development speak is full of such experts.
This is why people can operate in organisations with names like “crisis coalition” without even feeling what implications the term “crisis” has on the people’s psyches and the way they view things.
With the MDC formations, regional governors; the Reserve Bank Governor assumed new meanings.
So too the Attorney-General – creating a jungle of words whose meaning is called illegal regime change.
Governments all over have various ministries, but it was not until 2008 that Zimbabweans realised that certain ministerial portfolios were supposed to be “key ministries”. At some point progress was stalled by these terms.
The list is endless.
The latest semantic set up is security sector reforms.
Even in Western governments where they take a leaf from, you don’t hear such loose talk because national security rubber stamps a nation’s sovereignty; but in Zimbabwe, it is supposed to be a free for all.
The president as head of State and Government is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
So, when MDC-T is calling for security sector reforms, do we need to be rocket scientists to see that they have changed from “Mugabe must go”, to “security sector reforms”?
Have they noted it, and are they also going to endorse this latest fad because the people have noted what “change” means – being taken for granted!
Any wonder also that the term no-fly zone assumed a new meaning that has seen people in Libya suffering?
Maybe this is the tyranny of words that Stuart Chase talks about.
[email protected]
Online Reporter