Hello, Mr. PP”, Opalaba bellowed into the handset in response to my enthusiastic announcement of my presence in the area. There is a history behind this exchange.
I had once walked into Opalaba’s booby trap of tradition bashing when I accused him of not welcoming me back home. I had suggested to him, as the elders taught us, that if he didn’t consider it appropriate to stretch to me a hand of welcome, he should not expect a corresponding gesture of goodwill to him. After all, he who fails to say “welcome” has lost a right to “I am here and I hope I meet you well.”
My friend didn’t take kindly my accusation and though I wasn’t going to let him win the debate that ensued, I thought that he had a point. Opalaba insisted that either the elders were wrong or I got the import of their teaching upside down and inside out. In his thinking, the suggestion that the person at home must first stretch a hand of welcome to the visitor or family member returning from a trip makes sense when the two are physically contiguous. It is then easy for the home-bound folk to witness the arrival of the family member or visitor. In such a situation, it is normal to expect a warm welcome back from the home bound person to which the arriving folk may respond “I hope that I find you well.”
However, while that scenario is normal in the traditional setting, it does not feature often in contemporary setting when even within the same village, I may not know that Opalaba was away or has arrived and vice versa. It was in such a setting that I had accused Opalaba. His response was an outburst of a pent-up anger at whoever or whatever: How am I supposed to know that you had arrived? Am I expected to have a crystal ball? It’s stupid to quote that nonsensical proverb. It doesn’t apply to this situation. In fact, it’s the reverse that applies: If you don’t announce your arrival with “e ku ile” you forfeit your right to “e ku abo.”Since that exchange, I learnt to announce my arrival.
That was what happened last weekend and the response that I got was “Hello, Mr. PP.” To my question, “what does that mean?” Opalaba irritatingly suggested that I ought to know. “You are all pseudo progressives,” he derisively averred. “And I just pity the poor folks that you all deceived with your change mantra. Change my foot!”
Continuing, Opalaba exploded: “What change when you cannot even defend a poor kid taken advantage of? Your legislators were quick to initiate an ethics probe of one of their members for bashing them in an interview. But when a 14-year-old was abducted and impregnated, ‘mum’ was the response from them! Now a bill seeking a law to criminalise such barbaric exploitation of the vulnerable has been dealt a death blow in the Senate. But what have you done as a columnist? ‘Mum’ is the word from you as well.”
“By the way” Opalaba continued, do you know what’s in that bill? It is the most reasonable and modest set of legislation that any reasonable person, born of a woman, would gladly assent to if only as an honour to the vessel through which they entered the world. And to those who have daughters and sisters among them, you would expect that they would be mindful of the future that they aspire to have those poor girls and women experience and do the right thing.
“In case you haven’t followed your senators’ legislative blunder, I have identified at least six substantive and largely innocuous features of the gender equality bill. And I would invite your good self to tell me, based on your understanding of the commonsense revolution that APC enunciated and which I believe you subscribed to, which of these is lacking in commonsense or is too radical for your comfort.
“First, the bill requests parity for boys and girls and men and women in educational placement and school enrolment, including in the award of scholarship. Simply put, obstacles should not be placed on the path of girls or women in the matter of educational attainment. Pray, why would any sane senator oppose this? Are girls and women different species? Are they not human beings? Does their different anatomy place a curse on them? It is just so damning of the mentality of pseudo progressives who are really closeted reactionaries.
“Second, the legislation seeks to eliminate gender stereotyping and customary prejudices that are ignorantly based on perceived inferiority or superiority of the sexes. Where roles are reserved for men and women based on such stereotypes, it does an irreparable harm to the psyche of young women and men. Indeed, our distinguished senators may not be aware or conscious of the real foundation of their votes on the bill. But they have just exposed the harm that traditional stereotyping had done to their own psyche. They grew up being fed with the rubbish about what women are and in their adult lives they refuse to independently and critically evaluate the old “idols of the tribe”, the prejudices that stand in the way of reason and rationality.
“Third, the gender equality bill seeks to eliminate sexual and domestic violence, including rape, assault and sexual harassment. All religions preach domestic harmony. All sects preach peace. While would senators be in favour of promoting sexual violence? But you may tell me that none of them favours the promotion of violence. My question to you is “why are they against a bill that seeks to eliminate violence?”
“Fourth, the bill that your pseudo progressive senators reject seeks to eliminate inhuman and humiliating treatment of widows. It seeks to give a widow the right to an equitable share in the inheritance of her husband’s property.And to your pseudo progressive senators, this is a mortal sin! A woman spent the whole of her life with a man more or less like a servant, bore his children, satisfied his sexual urge, nursed him when he was sick, provided the needed emotional support for his passion and ambition no matter what they are. In the end, he passed on and the woman is left in limbo. She cannot have access to his property. Relations who hated him and her while he was alive have the right to inheritance. This is the tradition that your pseudo progressive senators admire and voted to continue.
“Fifth, the gender equality bill seeks to ensure more participation for women in politics and in positions of authority. But your pseudo progressives cannot bring themselves to an understanding of why they must empower women in this way. After all they (women) are supposed to be seen and not heard. The fact that the major prophets have special places for women in their heart doesn’t amount to anything for your reactionaries in progressive garb. Women are about half the population of the nation. But out of over a hundred senators, there are not up to 10 women. It is good reason for shame. But shamelessness is the heritage of pseudo progressives.
“Sixth, the gender equality bill seeks to make age 18 the minimum age for marriage in the country. Of course, for pseudo progressives this is the height of provocation when they would rather catch them young. So for them it is the last straw. Indeed, I venture to hazard a guess that many of them did not bother to read the entire legislation and when this caught their attention, they just decided there and then that the entire bill must be shredded. Pity!
“In the end, a chamber with a majority of its members in a political party that campaigned as a change agent and an advocate of commonsense revolution, threw out a progressive bill that seeks to emancipate a large segment of the population from unfair exploitation. How low can a chamber go?”
Thus sayeth Opalaba. And from me, oro pesi je.
