The meaning and interpretation of words is a field of much contestation and ironies.The just ended elections have created a brand new and quite ironic scenario in that people may have reservations on the fairness of an election,yet applaud lt as free and peaceful.I am pursuaded much to submit that an election verdict is always an aggregate of all the core factors viewed and assesed conjunctively and not in adjunct.There is no peaceful robbery or sweet rape,it just cant be so! The moment one discovers or suspects that there has been fraud,the pretence of smiles on the fraudster before the suspicion immidiately become violent diabolic gestures of an evil stratagem.There is no way at all Sadc can or could have spoken of free and peaceful....absent fairness,it is quite grotesque to me.lt is a flawes calculus which only leads to a paradox in that by common reason and association of words,a peaceful and free exercise automatically must lead to a fair election,yet they have reservations on the later standard which in my view is a resultant of the first two conditions.Put differently once a news reporter sniffs an Asiagate on a soccer match with reasonable suspicion,lt would be a paradox for him to raise that suspicion and yet applaud as forceful a striker who scored ten goals! Elections lf l may say are sui generis,the play of semantics in referrence to their credibility definately cannot follow any reading which is less than a cumulative and conjunctive one.I am tempted to say that the Constitution must have spelt out that an election we want must be free,peaceful and fair with these words constituting an aggregate and one standard.There is no violence which leads to peace,equally there is no peace which leads or may lead to an unfairness!
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:13:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015