The news this week has been dominated by the remarks made by the Senator for Meru county, Mithika Linturi, at the massive political rally held at the Eldoret sports ground last weekend.
A single word – “madoadoa” (translated loosely as 'filthy stains on an otherwise spotless fabric') – was all it took for the wrath of many Kenyans to descend on the senator’s head. For this is a word that gained notoriety during the International Criminal Court proceedings against Deputy President William Ruto. The word was used as a reference to the 'non-indigenous' communities within the upper Rift Valley that were marked for massacres and eviction.
Such then is the power of a single word or phrase if it has previously been used to unleash a murderous rampage by highly organised militias.
In much the same way, here in Kenya, the owner of a commercial forest might instruct his casual labourers to “cut down the tall trees” and think nothing of it, as what he was saying would be clear enough. But in Rwanda, it is precisely those words that launched the genocide in 1994. And therefore, I should imagine it would be foolish to utter them casually, within that country.
There was a time when I would have – without hesitation – speculated that Senator Linturi had “scored an own goal” from which it would be impossible to recover. But I now know better – and mostly because of the 2016 presidential election in the US.
During that election campaign, a video recording from 10 years earlier was released, which had then candidate Donald Trump making a lewd remark about the casual manner in which he could grope women and get away with it.
Many commentators rushed to conclude that Trump had effectively lost the election with that one incident – and that at the very least, he had lost any chance he might have had of getting the women of America to vote for him.
But instead, what we saw when votes were counted is that American women – and even the most devout evangelical Christians among them – voted in large numbers for Trump all the same.
The lesson from that incident then was that once voters have chosen sides, they tend to stick with their team. And they easily find ways to forgive their favoured candidates of what may once have seemed to be an unforgivable blunder.
The only possible exception here would be in what every election has, which is the 'floating voters'. These are the relatively few people who have not yet made up their mind, and who may in the course of the election be swayed one way or another.
If the leading candidate is clearly headed for a landslide victory, then these 'floating voters' are of little consequence. But in a close election, they are the difference between victory and defeat.
We may not know for sure what impact this regrettable remark by the senator will ultimately have. And it would be unfair not to specify that he has since apologised and tried to explain that his words have been taken out of context.
But what is certain is that there will be plenty more of such “own goals” scored by the rival teams in the months ahead.
As has been mentioned by others, there is something about a large partisan crowd, and the opportunity to address them, which brings out an incredible recklessness in politicians.
Indeed, it is debatable whether the politicians have a greater effect on the partisan crowds they address, or if it is the crowds that affect them more.
We ordinary folk, gazing out at such an immense gathering – stretching as far as the eye can see – would be utterly intimidated if asked to address the crowd. But to the man or woman who truly loves politics and all that goes with it, such a crowd is a dream come true. And standing to address the crowd sets the adrenalin flowing fast and furious through their veins.
There can be no possibility of measured and temperate speech at such times. The politician – whether an experienced veteran or a newly-hatched novice – is bound to go overboard, sooner or later.
And out of this are major blunders made.
