How language has impacted our thinking, behaviour over the years
Zimbabwe needs to do what has to be done and do it well. The things that went wrong and that willy-nilly practically derailed the nation must now be cleared. We need a new knowledgebased resoluteness on national issues. That way we can protect our collective interests.
MY experience over the years has been that wherever people are gathered together for a purpose and whenever they engage in active programmes aimed at something, certain words and/ or expressions gain currency and become part of everyday conversation.
Between 1980 and 2017 certain words became integral to Zimbabwean discourse.
Independence brought the Portuguese word “povo” into our consciousness. Creative and humorous as always, the people said it meant “People of various opinions”, a rather demeaning term. Former Zanla guerrillas and Zanu-PF cadres imported this word and others into Zimbabwe from Mozambique. Zimbabweans who had never been to Mozambique learned to yell, “Viva unidade” (Long live our unity) and “Aluta continua!” (The struggle continues). Even I could with confidence say, “Nada camarada” (No comrade).
Ex-Zipra guerrillas who had been to the Soviet Union for military and other training brought the Russian word, “Nyet!” This Russian word for “No” is by comparison much more emphatic and final than similar words in many other languages.
To this day we there are people in Zimbabwe called Nikita, Valentina, Anastasiya and Ivan. There is even a Lenin and a Stalin!
During the Smith era hardly any black person took any notice of the annual national budget. Then independence came, and with it Dr Bernard Chidzero, formerly with the United Nations, and budget language changed.
In every budget statement Minister Chidzero expressed everything in “real terms” as well as in “nominal terms”.
To that was soon added the acronym “Esap” (Economic Structural Adjustment Programme).
After a while, and with justification, Esap became the people’s number one enemy. The word tasted like ash, and the much-vaunted belt-tightening became a retrenchment tool in true capitalist fashion. This in a country whose declared path was socialist and egalitarian!
For years, thereafter, few new fascinating terms came into use; at least not until land reform began in earnest. Then terms like “designated farms” crept in as land reform rhetoric became a lot more pronounced. The Government appropriated white-held land for redistribution to prejudiced and landless black folk. This went some way in correcting existing historical imbalances. As the land question progressively became a major irritant, terms like “willing seller, willing buyer” and “fast track land programme” gained currency.
Depending on where one’s sympathies lay, land reform attracted such epithets as “chaotic, controversial, ill-conceived, illplanned” and so on.
The word “cronies” also became common. According to the traducers of land reform, then president, Robert Mugabe, distributed land to his cronies.
Following the 2008 elections and the subsequent formation of a Government of National Unity (GNU) another word began to do the rounds.
Once Robert Mugabe had used the word “principal” it gained popular use and acceptance. Previously, the only principal most people knew was someone in charge of a school or college and other such institutions. The word was used across the political divide.
In the aftermath of Nelson Chamisa’s lodging of an electoral challenge against now incumbent president ED Mnangagwa in the country’s Constitutional Court this last August, nearly everyone has vicariously become a paralegal.
Social media were awash with words like “pith, fulcrum, primary evidence, residue, My Lord, My Lady, learned counsel, my learned colleague” and so on.
On the streets too it was the same. Whatever else it may have done, the constitutional hearing demystified legal processes and gave the courts a human face.
Points at law were practically illustrated, including the fact that the burden of proof lay with the complainant rather than with the respondent.
Chamisa had to prove his case beyond any shadow of doubt. ED being the respondent did not have to prove that he was not guilty of the allegations levelled against him or that he had not lost the election.
Uninformed partisan laymen were inclined to think and say that Chief Justice Malaba was being unnecessarily interrogatory with Advocate Thabani Mpofu and his team. It should now be clear to all and sundry that Advocate Mpofu and his colleagues had to be prodded in order determine with absolute certainty whether or not he had proved his case. ◆