Opposition is certainly the most misunderstood and abused word in african politics.

opposition” is certainly the most misunderstood word in [the] african political context and practice. If it is at all remotely understood, it is certainly misapplied, if not abused.

However, going by all indications, it is safe to say that “opposition” is misunderstood and thus misapplied and abused firstly by those who claim to be in the “opposition“; and secondly and certainly by those they claim to oppose, those in power – the government – who take it as an opportunity to do the most damage possible on the [their] “opposition“.

The way “opposition” is used and applied in the african political context is such that it means (to be) disagreeable and confrontational rather than, say, disagreeable with whatever that doesn’t lead to or deviates from seeking consensus, that is, to find a middle ground on which everyone, at least, feels their demands on whatever the issues [at hand] in contention are being accommodated.

In effect, because of this misunderstanding which then leads to being stubbornly disagreeable and confrontational rather than consensual, the “opposition“, more often than not, seeks to address issues in such a way that either genuinely threatens or, at least, appears or gives the impression to threaten, those in power or those to whom it is opposed – the government.

Consequently, such aggressive behaviour prompts those to whom opposition is directed, into a defensive mode and act in such a way that they treat the “opposition” as the enemy to be totally crushed and obliterated.

The overall effect is that there’s very little effort and interest, if any, from either side for consensus – in collective national interests – to address national issues or rectify whatever is not working as it ought to be or might have gone wrong.

This attitude, therefore, makes it possible and leads to the unfortunate political practice of putting people into narrow but dangerous categories of little tight duo boxes of “us” and “them” and subsequently judged on the basis of; if you aren’t with us, you are against us. Likewise, if you are against us, the conclusion is – too often false – you are therefore with them, that is, those conveniently deemed as the ‘enemies’.

This unfortunate and unnecessary dichotomy allows for a myopic nonetheless dangerous attitude, mainly from those in power – the government, of not accommodating and thus rejecting all views, whether and however constructive or unconstructive they might be, from the opposition, and vice versa.

This is the absurdity that is afflicting african politics and in the process, wreaking unnecessary havoc and misery prevalent on the continent, and in some way – one might argue – which gives other people, particularly those who falsely feel or simply for expedient purposes to jerk up their own inadequate moral spirits, that they have a moral obligation to us, hapless africans, and our lives than we do ourselves.

The feeling and/or right to lecture, if not dictate, to us on how we ought to conduct our affairs, political and/or otherwise.

The major threat to politics and perhaps the major cause for the antipathy from the masses towards politics and politicians; and very typical of political expediency and dishonesty, is for the politicians to try to convince, with lies of course, and therefore get the average person [masses] to believe that their – the politicians’ – own individual political achievements and advancement, represents the achievements and advancement of [for] the average person and the masses.

This particular attitude towards politics by politicians and the largely self-serving quasi-euro-centric and colonially falsified bourgeois class in Africa, is the major cause of Africa’s endemic and cyclic socio-economic and political predicament.

We must work tireless to abandon confrontational and in many cases, violent political opposition in african politics and embrace consensual opposition politics, accommodate constructive views through civilised dialogue, debates while collectively but respectfully challenging views that are divisive.


Attending funeral is certainly a humbling as well as depressing experience

Attending a funeral is certainly humbling, it reminds us of our own mortality. It leaves us with a feeling of fragility, thinking about and reflecting on own death, wondering and asking quietly when our own time will be up.

What’s even more depressing about attending a funeral is asking someone next to you, how long they knew [have known] the deceased, only to be told: not long!

You ask what they will most remember and miss about the deceased, they take a long, reflective pause into silence, only to break the silence with: I don’t know, delivered with a “don’t put me on the spot” kind of look on the face.

So, given the moment, the atmosphere, you oblige, and look away, quietly and slowly recoiling into reflective silence about what you’ve just experienced and been witness to about human relations.

Our relations with others particularly in the current world in which we [tend to] have more virtual friends, and with whom we obsessively spend copious amounts of our precious resource – time – interacting, that is, virtual interaction – than real friends with whom we allocate very little portion of our time to physically interact and get to know well. This is perhaps as a result of obsessively spending a significant chunk of our time on the virtual friends.

Moved by the eulogy, you later ask the person who gave the most emotionally touching eulogy, how long they’ve known the deceased. Oh, long time! We’ve known each other since high school or something of that sort. Or he/she was my colleague, neighbour. They admit with sorrowed affection.

You ask whether they’ve ever told the deceased all the wonderful things said/read in the eulogy? Shockingly, they say no. Some say, possibly out of embarrassment and therefore in their defence, they never really thought about it that way before. But they feel relieved they did!

Yes, they feel relieved to have said/read and expressed their feelings about the deceased, spoke all those wonderful things about the deceased in the most moving eulogy but none of which they ever actually took time to tell or thought about telling the deceased before their death.

Wait! You pause and ask yourself, internally and quietly, of course, you’ve known each other, you’ve known the deceased of whom you spoke so eloquently in such an emotionally moving and poetic eulogy but never actually told them how you feel about them? Never told them all those things you said about them in that moving eulogy?

So, the question becomes: what purpose do [such] eulogies [seek to] serve?

If you couldn’t speak to the deceased and have never told them how you feel about them, the sort of things expressed in eulogies, why do you have [feel the need] to do so in a eulogy? To simply relieve your emotions and make yourself feel good?

Could it possibly be that such eulogies are used as emotional therapeutic moments for those feeling guilty for having taken the deceased for granted in life?

Of what use or practical purpose do eulogies serve to the deceased?

If such eulogies are of no use or serve no practical purpose primarily to the deceased, aren’t we being allowed to be entertained to the most opportunistic form of human hypocrisy?

We must learn to be honest to each other, speak honestly to each other, learn not only to appreciate and be grateful to each other but also, importantly, express appreciation, gratitude to each other.

We mustn’t wait until death has struck, to remember to express how wonderful the deceased has been/was to us. What a wonderful, kind, generous and a whole slew of overly sugarcoated words common in but also only rare to death eulogies.

Frankly, it is of no use to the deceased to be spoken of in the most glowing eulogy while those who make such eulogies, never expressed gratitude or their feelings to the deceased while alive.

Or even worse, and this is possible, it can’t be ruled out, said terrible things, harsh words about or, indeed, ever conspired against or to cause harm to the deceased while alive.

Except and only if such eulogies serve as the only chance for – only moment of – atonement, so that the atoned can happily move on in life; they really serve no use or practical purpose to the deceased.

Finally, I believe, the best way, or if you will, eulogy, is to always express our gratitude to those who deserved it. To let them know how privileged we feel about them and their purpose to us/in our lives while they are still with us or we are still around with them.

Even where and when gratitude is not candidly expressed immediately, we must remember to reflect back on the experience others bring/give us, and take time to go back to them and express our sincere gratitude, let them know and feel what they mean to us.

However, to do this, requires the ability and humility on our part to appreciate people’s worth, without judgement.

The ability and humility not to think and thus take ourselves so highly, clever, manipulative, and think, if not lie to ourselves, that if and when someone is good to us, it’s because how of clever, manipulative we are, and not their generosity.

When an acquaintance was appointed to a ‘juicy’ high Government position.

When an acquaintance was appointed to a “juicy” high government position, naturally – as is the decorum and expected in such cases when one is raised high up at the “eating” (that’s the mindset) high table – she thanked the powers that be, that is, the Government Appointing Authority, for giving her what she carefully framed and phrased as the “opportunity” to “serve”.

Anecdote: having been given the “opportunity” to “serve”, that’s, the country, is the claim or rather sweet lie, made by everyone in such instances. So, she’s not the only one, it’s a common and seemingly instinctive reaction, like a quick fart as a result of a sudden jolt on a full belly.

But the crux, quite frankly hypocrisy, of this pathetic common claim she – out of and as expected formality, simply repeated verbatim – was the fact that, having known her before and what she did, she was apolitical.

She had absolutely nothing to do with “serving” the country in any capacity nor interest in the country, be it social or civic engagements.

She always kept herself busy and away from anything that involved and/or had to do with the country – the government of which she was joining as and in the rare capacity of a high ranking official.

Whenever she engaged her compatriots socially in the land so far away, commonly referred to in political and technical parlance as the “diaspora” – where she fancied and passed herself off as an “entrepreneur”, a dubious claim in itself, but nonetheless was poached for the high government position – it was always a brief interaction, no more than to say hello, “Chers amis [et] compatriotes” and off she disappeared to yonder, until chance dictated.

To see or meet her after that brief interaction, would only be a rare and chance encounter, in and of itself, something that would make her seem to have and radiate with this aura of a celebrity of sorts, that would, somehow, make one feel privileged to see and meet her once again.

There was always never anything mentioned about the country, let alone the indication or the slightest interest in “serving” it, mentioned.

As a matter of fact, she made it quite clear, outwardly in attitude, that she would not and wasn’t prepared to entertain any talk/conversation remotely about or connected to the country and its government to which she would later be raised high up at its “eating” table.

But, firstly, how she was considered for appointment to a “juicy” high government position alone, is in itself, something of a mystery that merits its own story.

Secondly, how and where she plucked the courage – the sheer shamelessness with all those press cameras flashing at her, in her face, giving her all the limelight she could only have dreamt of until that moment – to make that pronouncement, is something truly to behold.

It made me reflect deeply and ask, what I believe are pertinent questions:

  1. Why did she have to wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” the country?
  2. Why do many other [such] people [have] to wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” the country?
  3. Does “serving” the country require one to be in (occupy) a government position, without which, it is impossible for such people to serve?
  4. Didn’t she have the opportunity before to serve the country in various other ways and capacities than wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” as an appointed government official?
  5. Likewise, don’t many others like her who, upon their appointments to government positions, then loudly and shamelessly make such false and empty public declarations, have the opportunity to serve the country in various other ways and capacities than in the capacity of appointed government officials?
  6. What happens or would happen to these people if and when such “opportunity to “serve” is not available or not given to them? Do or would they choose to fold their arms and simply be passive?
  7. What do these people mean by “serving” the country anyway? What’s “serving” the country?
  8. Does that mean that those who aren’t in government or high government positions aren’t “serving” and/or therefore, can’t “serve” the country?
  9. Who is said to “serve” and not “serve” the country?
  10. What criteria is applied in determining who does and doesn’t “serve” the country?

However, and not surprising at all, this hollow and opportunistic “patriotism” comes out naked when these people are suddenly removed from their ‘juicy’ high government positions and effectively kicked off/away from the government “eating” high table.

Consequently, they are reduced to scurrying for crumbs falling off from the same government “eating” high table they once occupied – which is similar in function to a revolving door, always has one or two sent off and one or two welcomed on – but is now occupied by other similarly opportunistic people, shamelessly pretending to be more patriotic and “serving” the country than the lot before them.

But in all this pretentiousness, flaunted false patriotism, there’s one common characteristic, true to human nature, and that is that people, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, and in reference to the mindset of the “eating” high table – are enthusiastically patriotic to their stomachs.

Africans: we are a funny lot!

We Africans are a funny lot, while busy whining about and cursing the “White” world – hereafter, referred to as the “West” – for the ruthless, largely historic, injustices it has meted on us over time, and demanding “White” people to give us back everything they, so we assertively allege, ‘stole’ from us, like land and all, we’re too happy and busy sucking up to them. Running to them – the West – for all kinds of things that make the West what it is – what “white” people are – the things that we so admire about and make us look to them as the paragon of “civilisation” like an “education”.

Not to mention adopting their names and socio-political, economic and cultural value system in the false name of “modernity” and “development“. A duo-concept, nonetheless, we have so miserably failed at conceptualising and subsequently struggle to fundamentally understand, which explains why ‘modernity’ and ‘development’ in the african psyche as well as practice, evidently means, doing what the “White” world – the West – and “white” people do.

Consequently, we have accepted the western (“White”) socio-cultural value system, for instance, as what is permissible and thus a model for what to be and aspire to, so we work hard to be just that, like “White” people, be and have all things “white” and by “white” people.

It is not farfetched a suggestion that, if and where we could – were it possible – many of [among] us would be too happy to [convert to] be all “white”.

You see this kind of imitation of “white” people, in what we value as “education”, values and virtues taught through that education – a process, no doubt, more than anything else, of the westernisation of both the african mind and body.

The desperate imitation of the same people and their socio-cultural value system – hereafter referred to as ‘western’ culture and value-system – we, on the one hand, allege has been the basis of a political system that has oppressed us for far too long, plundered and stolen our valued resources, but the same system, surprisingly, we, on the other hand, are too happy to adopt and adapt ourselves to and gladly be associated with, suggesting we suffer something akin to the “Stockholm syndrome

So, the venerable “educated” african is often one who has been through and subjected to a rigorous westernisation (indoctrination) process – that is, “education” – a process which can be reasonably compared to a human [african] “whitening” washing machine africans go through from one end – black (dark) and come out all thoroughly washed “white” on the other end – euphoric.

One simply has to listen to the [an] “educated” african speak, observe their projected mannerisms and social behaviour and what [social] values they exude and project as, primarily, of an acceptable “educated” african. This final african [human] product is not by fault, it’s by systematic design.

In come the african duo concepts of “modernity” and “development”, the seeds of which have been systematically sown through and during the process of westernisation [indoctrination], which are, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, conspicuously western concepts through and through, that no evidence or further elaboration is necessary.

We africans do so little to innovate, create and/or, indeed, modify – at least to fit into and reflect our context – what we learn and thus take from our westernisation – “education” – but shamelessly and lazily, albeit happily, copy and paste everything.

It never ceases to make me wonder and thus ask why western innovators, creators hardly accuse, let alone try to sue us, africans, for the wanton and conspicuous plagiarisation of their [conceptual] innovations, creations and all kinds of things we so desperately aspire to achieve.

This plagiarism is so obvious in our adopted way of life, the lifestyles we proudly fancy living and flaunt as “high” standards of living – “high-end” model living standards – displayed, for instance, in our housing models and many things that we have defined and accepted as “modern” and which we aspire to, and the achievement of which, is lauded as success.

There’s no wonder, thus, that we measure our level of “modernity”’ and “development” according to how far or close we are at becoming a western (white) model african country.

We’ve taken success and accepted it for what the West defines it to be and thus measure our success on/according to western standards of success, and by the same token, we measure failure accordingly. This, despite the glaringly fact that our environments in which we operate, with all our efforts to “modernise” and “develop”, are still fundamentally different from western environments.

Then we wonder why, and feel disappointed, when measured against the same standards, we always fall short – far too short – of western levels of “modernity” and “development”, our great efforts to westernise notwithstanding.

The effect of this, therefore, leads us, rather desperately, to seek validation, not from within us, ourselves – but from outside – external validation – from the western establishment.

So, we are too happy to call [bring] in “white” people – under the pretext of ‘expats’ – to share with us their ‘expertise’ that will miraculously leapfrog us to their level.

We call [invite] them in – no doubt on expensive contracts – as ‘experts’ to evaluate our progress into our westernisation journey, we anxiously wait for their ‘expert’ judgement on [of] our efforts, on things that are essentially, supposedly, for our own benefits.

We aspire and work hard to build expensive skyscrapers that have very little practical use to our fundamental needs and uses, as long as they serve our overriding purpose – to have something shiny to show off – to show the “White” world how “modern” and “developed”, in other words, westernised we’ve become.

To suggest that the duo concepts of “modernity” and “development” in Africa seek to bastardise african countries and societies into enclaves of western (white) socio-economic and value-systems, is not farfetched. It should not be rejected as a form of self-hatred or negative feeling toward self, either. It is simply stating the obvious!

If anything, and far from it, it’s an honest observation of the falsification of the african mind, inculcated and perpetuated through the westernisation [colonial indoctrination] process we so proudly call “education” – which teaches africans to hate everything african and love all things “white”.

One only has to observe the conspicuous consumption habits of africans, mainly the “educated” elite that constitute the visible majority representation of Africa and africans and their materialistic inclinations and concept of “quality”.

Quality, in african psyche, and, allow the oxymoron, ‘standard’, is synonymous with western – all things “white”, made by “white” people.

Lastly, how do we africans reconcile our internal contradictions and the apparent lack of moral compass while we, particularly those powerful political forces – the political elite – who run and control our countries like their personal estates, constantly keep whining about neo-colonialism and how western political and economic interests are forever interfering in our own (national) affairs?

Yet, these same powerful forces are too happy to practise, and in many cases, busy practising [a form of] colonialism on their own people, us, disguised as ‘self-governance‘ under the lie of ‘independence‘ that has been and continues to be told to us as an african achievement that we all should celebrate. As such, many african governments waste large sums of money from their national treasuries on pompous and extravagant so-called ‘independence” day celebrations annually, the real purpose and sole motive of which, is to elevate these political elite and their interests.

However, in reality, we live in a system of colonialism orchestrated and administered and are increasingly being colonised, oppressed by our own people who, for the most part, masquerade [to us] as our ‘leaders‘, yet are unaccountable to us let alone working in our general interests.

How can or do we call ourselves “proud” africans or whatever our african nationalities, while we can’t and don’t speak our languages and our children are taught not to speak our languages but colonial languages as a demonstration of our “education” levels?

Why is it that what we call “education” in Africa is the process of westernisation – the “White” falsification and indoctrination process of the african mind – but more importantly and strangely, why are we so proud of it while at the same time demonise the West – “White” people or the colonial system for the injustice done to us?

Why are we too happy to have the West (“white” people) give us an “education” and happily send our own bright minds to be “educated” (indoctrinated) in western social indoctrination centres called schools and universities?

Strangely, we expect them to be taught to solve our [african] problems.

While, in the process, by doing that, we are taking money out of and therefore effectively bleeding our own economies of essential funds, into western economies, that send to us paltry crumbs in ‘aid’ with stringent conditions and give them the temerity to dictate to us their values based on that.

Why is there no reverse similar process, where the West (white) people go and/or send their own bright minds to Africa to be “educated” by africans?

Is it possibly because they perhaps think and believe that there’s nothing of value to learn from Africa and taught by africans?

There’s little wonder and it is not surprising that, as a result of our westernisation – “education” – we’ve accepted and therefore call, for instance, western business practices and standards as “international” business practices and standards without critically asking what exactly makes them “international”, particularly if and when, africans hardly participate in or contribute to the creation of such practices and standards.

Even where it is obvious, they are hurting african businesses and interests, we hardly pause to ask: in what way does our following and implementing these “international” practices and standards work against us, our businesses and other interests? Cui bono?

But we proudly follow along and play ball, beaming with great excitement to be part of an “international” trade and business system, yet, keep wondering why our businesses struggle and rarely progress and/or succeed in the same system.

Why our economies are always lagging behind – falling far too behind western businesses and economies in so-called “international” business and economic rankings while and as a result of being stymied by these intentionally designed structural limitations we accept as “international” business practices and standards.

Consequently, this creates quite a desperate situation where, if africans – african busineses – want to be successful in “international” business and finance, are left with no option but to be forced into working with western – “white” – institutions and businesses on their terms and conditions, often a costly alliance on the part of africans.

Trump and his administration: a gift from above for the opportunistic african political beasts and the surge of “intra-national-political hegemonisation”

The Trump administration, with all its being blamed for not doing for Africa (as if it is the duty of the [any] US administration to do anything for Africa) has been an unintended humongous blessing to Africa and the political forces that dominate the continent.

For the most part, the Trump administration’s attitude towards Africa has helped the possibility of the phenomenon of what I term as “intra-national-political hegemonisation”, that is, a situation in which the ruling and dominant political and power groups within african countries ensure, by and through all means necessary and possible – ideological chicanery and/or the threat of, or indeed, use and application of force and violence – they have their views and interests dominating the political arena.

The surge of the phenomenon of “intra-national-political hegemonisation” in Africa is largely done under the, needless to mention – false – pretext of “putting the country’s interests first” or, rather, with and in a more continental grandeur “Africa first.” evoking Trump’s chest-thumping signature claim – “America first”- made while attempting his shot at the US high office.

A phrase, although not originally first used by Trump and his administration but has certainly been brought back into political discourse and amplified by Trump and has since been claimed by many other, mainly authoritarian, polities across the world as a way to justify or cover up their horrid abuses of power.

This “african Trumpism” and Trump’s own apparent ‘lack‘ of interest in african politics but certainly not in Africa’s economic resources, has allowed african ruling power groups and their interests to dominate the african political discourse, with an authoritarian streak, claiming, of course, to “put their countries’ and Africa’s interests first”

It has also, although not surprising in the least bit, allowed and helped the same dominant ruling power groups, without the fear of much interference and threats of embargoes of whatever nature – especially if the US interests aren’t immediately and directly or indirectly threatened – at least for now – from the US administration, to consolidate, concentrate and centralise power in either an individual or a small group at the top.

This phenomenon of “intra-national-political hegemonisation” creates and allows the kind of formidable political power and force for the dominant ruling political power groups, or the dominant ruling individuals, and has thus made it possible for the creation of “political dynasties” on the continent of Africa by some of the dominant ruling political powers.

As a result of Trump’s and his administration’s show of less interest, at least on the outset, to what happens in Africa and its politics, the dominant ruling power forces in Africa are taking advantage of this and busy creating or plotting for the creation of political dynasties.

In summary, those who stand to gain from the current “intra-national-political hegemonisation” in Africa will certainly appreciate Trump and his Administration as a humongous blessing in disguise, without doubt. They will treat Trump and his administration as, so to speak “manna from heaven

While those who stand to lose as a direct or indirect result of the current “intra-national-political hegemonisation” of [the] african political sphere and its affairs, those who will either be its intended or unintended victims – who will be victimised by what happens – will possibly forever consider and curse Trump and his administration as and for a disaster – an unforgivable failure, perhaps in their own view – but only they alone, can possibly articulate more than anyone else can pretend to. And they will more likely blame him and his administration for their [future] predicament than they will likely blame their own authoritarian african “Trumps” creating political dynasties that are essentially the cause and making of their troubles.


What does the expression “think outside the box” really mean?

The expression/metaphor “think outside the box”, thrown about so brazenly is predicated on the false, although, unspoken assumption that it [the box] exists; and that it is somewhere. But, ironically, no one knows for certain what that ‘box’ is and/or where it is except, again, for the general assumption that everybody knows what and possibly where the ‘box’ is.

However, the reality is that such ‘box’ doesn’t exist unless, of course, we assume and accept that it is simply an analogy to mean that each human being – each person – each of us, in essence, is a box. That the human mind [brain] in which the ‘thinking’ is believed to take place is, so to speak, that ‘box’.

Because by calling upon people, sometimes in a rather condescending manner, to ‘think outside the box’ implies that those who are making the call[s], know what and quite possibly where the ‘box’ is.

It also means, and it is evidently an indirect admission, that people live in [that] the ‘box’ and unless there’s national or worldwide campaign to call upon everybody to ‘think outside the [such] box’ – to make such call[s] to only one group of people, simply beats the logic and effort, because you will still have other people – possibly many – [thinking] inside the ‘box’. You don’t want that and it is hardly flattering!

So, perhaps, the best and logical thing is to make it a [national/worldwide] policy to ensure that people – we all –  ‘think outside the box’ by, foremost, agreeing on what and where that ‘box’ is and then calling upon for the total collapsing and dismantling of that rather oppressive ‘box’ so that no one is left thinking in[side] it.

That way, therefore, we will not have the need to worry anymore about people or anyone thinking inside the bloody box and the need to constantly call on people to ‘think outside’ the bloody oppressive ‘box’.

We might want to take a cue and perhaps a similar approach from the way the oppressive communist hegemonic ‘box’ [was] collapsed and dismantled by, foremost, the destruction of the infamously famous imposing ‘Berlin Wall’ of oppression, and the subsequent domino effect on the collapse of the Soviet [Union] Empire. And how that defining turn of events, effectively cut Russia – then the communist Bulldog – to size by chopping to pieces what, until then, had no doubt been its vast and fierce power wings.

So, first, let us, collectively, agree on what and where that oppressive ‘box’ is, second, charge towards it with the force and formation of a ruthless riot police towards a marauding group of protesters, collapse and dismantle it completely – get and free everyone out of it – from its tyranny; from the dictatorship of ‘thinking inside the box’.

For, surely, it is a dictatorship of no less destructive magnitude and one that merits no less collective revulsion than the usual dictatorships, such as political and economic dictatorships we will risk our dear little lives in desperate attempts to resist and possibly defeat.

That is, and only if, it is of such great concern to us, and if not, then we should kindly stop applying and send the metaphor to the graveyard of such tired linguistic clichés. More so, because it is, to say the least, condescending and stupid on the part of those who so brazenly throw it about merely to sound ‘clever’ than others without realising they are, in reality, exposing their lack of critical thinking and analysis.

Besides, and let’s face it, to think differently, creatively and/or unconventionally while mired and stuck in the usual social framework, will most likely cause trouble to and alienate those, anyone, who dare[s] to do that which threatens the essence of social group[ing]s – control – which requires ‘group think’ as an essential unifying factor without which, controlling people without the threat and/or application of force, would be impossible and we would have no such thing as or discipline [science] of management.

You can only control and/or manage people, without resorting to force and violence, by ensuring they are all locked-in on a one dimension[al] and same thinking [mindset] pattern.



The dehumanising african political parlance of ‘sensitisation’.

The word [to] “sensitise” is the most overused and, no doubt, most abused, at least, in the african political sphere.

It is part of the common but extremely condescending and, quite frankly, dehumanising language used, almost instinctively, in public and political discourse, in african political parlance, often thrown about to give a veneer of a democratic process of reaching out to the public – the ordinary people – to raise [their] awareness on the social and political goings-on in their societies, from the most mundane and mindless things like worshipping and prostrating to an individual as a [the] founding ‘father’ (it is usually fathers which raises the critical question: where are the founding mothers?) of a country/nation.

How on earth a mere mortal individual can be a founding ‘father’ of any country/nation is another foreign political absurdity that is entrenched in african political mindset and one that must be put to critical question although the aim of which, of course, is to ultimately glorify a single individual and to give the impression such individual is superhuman, usually to build a mystical cult aura around such individual for posterity. So that future generations will be taught that they owe their existence to the superhuman exploits of such so-called founding ‘father’ without whom, well, they would never have seen the living light of their day.

But that is a topic of its own and one too deep and complicated that will be dealt with separately at a convenient time.

This extremely condescending and dehumanising language of sensitisation, is also applied to raise awareness on more serious and important political issues of the day like, and thus, soliciting for public opinion on whether or not national constitutions need fixes and maintenance here and there, to align them with what the authorities think and deem essential to reflect – so the prevailing narrative goes – political realities of the day to avoid being left behind and held captive in the past by our commitment to a legal document written – certainly not curved in stone – but on mere paper.

So, in such circumstances, the public needs to be sensitised on and made aware of that vital part of the national constitutions – that constitutions are, after all, created by us and can and will be changed by us, only if we are sensitised enough to realise the benefits that lie therein for us in a potentially changing [changeable] living document.

But more importantly, the language of sensitisation, is too often aimed at bringing – or creating the impression of bringing [pretending to bring] – the public to the same understanding with the authorities around many issues that are or simply carefully crafted to give the impression, nonetheless false, to be of national importance. Even though, and this is quite the norm of course, the public hardly has a say or genuine participation in the process of decision making on such issues.

Equally important and perhaps the sole motive, however, is to mobilise the public’s support behind the authorities’ machinations for their own (authorities’) personal interests usually to the inevitable detriment of the public’s interests.

To the extent that, at the end of the day, [to] sensitise, in essence, turns out to be an underhand political process of deliberately dumbing down the unsuspecting masses; which raises the fundamental question: is it to sensitise or ‘senselessise’, that is to say, talk and cajole sense and wit out of the masses?

Is [to] sensitise, henceforth, the authorities’ code word for ‘senselessise’?

Would it then be overstretching one’s imagination and perhaps too daring to indulge and entertain the unworldly thought and therefore refer to so-called public sensitisation by the authorities as “public tricknology”?

Beware of and when african political interest groups, the political establishment, start and come speaking the language of ‘sensitisation‘. They are often after your senses, with the intention to numb them – your senses – where and whenever they can’t destroy them forever so that you become and turn into a living human ‘tin‘ that can be shaken and drummed up anytime to and according to their own tune and rhythm.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that, only the senseless, that is, people without [devoid] of senses, can be sensitised. Therefore, when the authorities claim to sensitise the public, it is evidently because the authorities treat the public – people – as senseless morons who need sense drummed into them.