Not what they say but what they say was said
By Andrew Agbese
Lately our rights to listen and comprehend have been taken away by overzealous supporters of presidential candidates in the forthcoming general elections.
As it is today, we don’t have the right to listen and comprehend what presidential candidates of the major political parties say but have to wait for interpretation from other authorities.
It reminds me of the Obasanjo days when even Supreme Court judgments have to wait for the interpretation of the Attorney General and minister of justice before execution.
More profoundly, it reminds me of Prof. Wole Soyinka’s attempt to guide his audience over what should be the literary interpretation of the theme in his work, ‘Death and the King’s Horseman,’ when he cautioned that it should not be seen merely in the context of clash of cultures; a position many scholars have interogated.
As a firm believer in predestination, Soyinka through his works tries to project the unavoidability of atonement through sacrifices and intended that as the major theme of his work, but the deeper impact of how the plot challenges traditional practices was the one that resonated with the audience.
Our latter day interpreters would not let us be. A simple ‘good morning’ said by a presidential candidate can now mean many things depending on the reaction of the people.
If a presidential candidate says ‘good morning’ when he meant to say ‘good day’ and people react to say he was not conscious of time, it would be interpreted that he said it because he had a global audience in mind and was meant to appease those watching the live telecast from away places like Acapulco and Honolulu.
If it were today that Umaru Dikko (though not a presidential candidate) had told MKO Abiola that the presidency is not for highest bidder, some would have tried to justify it by saying he was only making comparison with how Iraq invaded Kuwait and the allied forces intervened; and whether we like it or not, we should accept that as the true intended meaning even if the words do no relate.
As youths we used to laugh over the many reported gaffes of former governor of Kano State, late Sabo Bakin Zuwo.
A few examples would not be put of place here.
Bakin Zuwo, while responding to a question about choosing a running mate, was said to have understood the question differently and responded by saying that he doesn’t know why his rival (Abubakar) Rimi, was always running after him.
On another occasion, when asked what he would do to harness the mineral resources in Kano, he was said to have responded that Kano has enough minerals (soft drinks) like Sinalco, Fanta, Coca-Cola etc.
He did not employ spin doctors to gaslight his audience, yet, all that did not stop him from winning to become governor.
Those days there were no ways to verify whether he actually said those things or not but it was understood that humans come with different baggages and if his was just lack of basic English, then it was tolerable.
But today, every presidential candidate is perfect or portrayed as such.
They are so infallible that they do not make mistakes. Rather than make the political leaders learn from their gaffes, they are decorated and (to borrow a word from Shehu Sani) deodorised that the blame is shifted to us, innocent bystanders, for not being educated enough to understand what they leaders are saying. Ehyaa.
The question we should however ask is why the problem exists in the first place. Why do these people always say things that needs fire men, other stunt men and miracle workers to reveal their true meanings?
In the past, when politicians speak, their message are usually loud and clear.You get to understand what they were saying without the generous aid of cryptic analysts, word contortionist and voodoo interpreters.
When Obafemi Awolowo was campaigning to be President of Nigeria, he was accused of harbouring anti-Igbo sentiments and one if the instances sited was his promise to end the sale of second hand clothes which at that time was dominated by Igbos when he becomes president.
When asked he did no spin it but maintained that that was his position because, ” We do not want our people to be wearing clothes which have been worn and condemned by the white men which Igbos call Okrika. These are meant for destitutes and we do not want our people to remain destitutes.”
Modern day spin doctors would have said that what he meant was that since Nigeria shares border with some Francophone countries, what he was trying to say was that Igbos can spread theirs businesses to Benin Republic and beyond. Any gibberish would do.
When Obasanjo said the election under his administration was going to be a do-or-die affair, he needed no interpreter and accepted responsibility that that was what he said by adopting the typical Nigerian attitude of, “I have said what I wanted to say oh, you can give it any interpretation; that one no concern me.”
When Tinubu made the rotten to bad statement his supporters said he was right and tried to import several meanings about the different stages of putrefaction of a once living object before his official spokesman accepted it was a gaffe and apologized.
It was Atiku Abubakar the other day on why it is best for notherners to elect him, a northerner, over other candidates from other regions. And his supporters said that was a pan Nigerian statement.
For Peter Obi, it is the inaccurate data he reels out to impress the audience and whenever that is brought to the attention of his supporters, they also try to pontificate.
At the rate these analysts are going ,we might one day need to wait for them to interpret everything their candidates say before we make any effort to understand.
It is well.
