Wednesday,
January 8, 2014
Folks, it is interesting how
language cuts in many ways to make or mar human communication—with results that
may be pleasant or tormenting. As a language lover, I have always been keen on playing
language games. It’s all based on SEMANTICS (meaning-making), which I enjoy.
Yesterday, the news media carried
a report in which they quoted Mr. Isaac Osei (NPP MP for Subin and former Ambassador to the UK and Ireland
and Chief Executive Officer of Ghana COCOBOD) as saying “Akufo-Addo
must retire from politics”. He was reported to have said so in an interview
with “Radio XYZ Breakfast Show” host, Moro Awudu, on Monday.
I took a
critical look at the rationale behind that call: “Nana
Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, is better off retiring from politics now to avoid
sullying his statesmanship” and the highlights of Mr. Osei’s viewpoints that jumped
at me:
- Akufo-Addo shot into the realm of
statesmanship the moment he conceded after the election petition verdict
was pronounced last year.
- “I think, at the moment, Nana Addo has
transcended politics and has moved into the realm of statesmanship. He’s
become a statesman. If I were to advise Nana Addo, I’ll say that let his
legacy be that”.
- “Nana Addo has carved a certain niche for himself. He
has moved a notch above politics to become a statesman with that singular
statement that he made”.
·
Nana Akufo-Addo's "... whole demeanour
[and] comportment during the trial of the election petition case, and then his
statement on the day when judgment was given put him on a certain pedestal”.
When I read the report, I quickly
dismissed it as not worth my bother, apparently because I won’t be surprised if
Akufo-Addo goes that way. He has seen his better days in Ghanaian politics,
even if his ambition to become the President, “come what may”, hasn’t
materialized. The future doesn’t look good for him either to make me think that
he will be Ghana’s President.
But Mr. Osei’s alleged call took
me in a different direction to wonder if he wasn’t making that call to clear
the path for himself since he indicated in the same breath that he could
himself contest the NPP’s flagbearership at the March congress. And Akufo-Addo
is a barrier to the other aspirants therein. A portion of the statement did
say, however, that Mr. Osei said he “is
ready to support the former Attorney General if he decides to run for president
again”.
At the back of my mind was the
nagging question: Has Mr. Osei not made utterances that will send him to the
NPP’s Sanhedrin (as is the norm for those making such high-stakes utterances)?
And considering the fact that some of the party’s stalwarts have already
declared their support for Akufo-Addo and vowed to use the last drop of
adrenaline in them to defend that cause, won’t Mr. Osei be hounded from within?
Even before I could find answers
to these questions, Mr. Osei has sprung to his feet to deny ever making that call.
The truth has sunk in that the implications of the utterances attributed to him
are dire, not only for his own political interests and reputation but also for
the NPP itself.
So,
his reason for rebutting the news report? His “comment about the
political future of Akufo-Addo was “misconstrued to suit the house style of the
media house which reported the issue.”
MY COMMENTS
So, what exactly did Mr.
Osei say?
Folks, it’s a language
game here. Take a critical look at Mr. Osei’s own admission and juxtapose it
with what was reported in the media to see things for yourselves.
I have done so and can
see no difference. It is all a matter of SEMANTICS—differences in
meaning making—which reinforces my claim that different people read different
meanings into utterances based on their particular positions of situatedness. It
is readers who make meaning, not writers or speakers. People see what they want
to see, not what somebody wants them to see.
Here is why:
The operational
statement in Mr. Osei’s own admission is that Akufo-Addo has “become a
statesman. If I was to advise Nana Addo, I’ll say that let his legacy be that”.
And the news medium’s
version is: “Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is better off
retiring from politics now to avoid sullying his statesmanship”.
True, there are some clear differences in the framing
of thoughts in the two versions, especially the part in the news report saying
that Akufo-Addo “is better off retiring from politics now” and “to avoid
sullying his statesmanship”. In his rebuttal, Mr. Osei didn’t admit saying so
categorically.
The original statement made by him curtly
portrayed Akufo-Addo as reaching the ultimate—statesmanship—meaning that he “is
wise and skilled and engaged in fixing the policies and conducting the affairs
of a government” (dictionary definition). The news report rightly mentioned
this aspect of statesmanship.
Unfortunately for Mr. Osei, the part that
conveys the part on “retirement” from politics is contained in his own words,
even if subtly framed: “If I was to advise Nana Addo, I’ll say that let his legacy be that”.
This part came after the idea of Akufo-Addo’s achieving statesmanship had been
stated.
I repeat Mr. Osei’s
words: “Let his legacy be that”. No more movement forward in a political bid
because there is nothing beyond statesmanship to accomplish. The mentioning of
LEGACY forbids any further aspiration.
Now, folks, tell me:
What is considered a LEGACY and how is it recognized vis-à-vis the one leaving
it behind? Can there be a legacy if the one supposedly to leave it behind is
still in control of it (in Akufo-Addo’s case, still vying for the flagbearer position
to contest the Presidential elections)? What, then, will constitute the legacy
that Mr. Osei is talking about?
Folks, it’s all a matter
of diplomacy, especially now that Mr. Osei is seeing issues from a wider angle
to know the dire implications. I don’t see anything drastically different from
the meaning that can be inferred from what the news medium reported him as
saying and what he is advancing as the grounds for claiming that his original utterances
were misconstrued and forced into the agenda of the news medium.
As for his other reasons
to mitigate the impact of the reported utterances, they can be brushed aside as
“diplomatic niceties” after the fact.
True, every media house has its
house style to guide its writers. Such editorial policies cover many areas and
are aimed at streamlining how written communication emanating from there should
be shaped. But in Mr. Osei’s case, it is clear that he is scared stiff about
the implications of his utterances and shifting blame to save his skin from the
NPP’s Sanhedrin.
I didn’t get the chance
to listen to the interview, but I hope Radio XYZ will respond to Mr. Osei’s
accusation for us to move on. When politicians get carried away only to turn
round to blame the media for putting words in their mouths, they sicken me!
Is Mr. Osei running away
from the consequences of his own utterances?
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment