Beyond Big English

Any minister-designate who is about to be vetted by a parliamentary vetting committee must prepare for the worst.

 He must understand that the vetting process is not a test for mere eloquence and bombast, alliteration and poetic delivery. It goes beyond the parapet of diction and usage, semantics and grandiloquence.

The aspiring minister may, therefore, speak big English, but it doesn’t really matter.

There is always a dictionary around to be consulted anyway. What matters is his (or her) ability to prove beyond every reasonable doubt that he can handle the job based on his academic, professional and moral track record.

The minister must be seen to be qualified for the job in all facets. If so, every question may be relevant no matter how frivolous. It has always been the case.

For example, if someone is a homosexual, that is his own palaver. But if he vies for public office, his homosexual activities must be well-examined and although he may be the best suited for the job, his unnatural desires may well disqualify him for obvious reasons. Of course, who wants a minister who will be sodomising his driver, garden boy and the tall security guard?

The case of Canaan Banana, one time Vice President of Zimbabwe, is fresh in memory. He was recently released from jail for sodomy, a conduct completely unbefitting of a nation’s vice-presidency.

It is also useful for questioners enquire about marital status, number of previous and current wives, number of children and the like.

Someone might have two wives for very good reasons. May be, one woman is not enough for him due to his extraordinary sexual appetite. And to avoid being adulterous, he takes another wife. It is a legitimate reason and polygamy is not a crime in Sikaman.

However, parliament must know whether he’d have time for the job as a minister when he is always thinking about sex and how to satisfy two wives while fathering and catering for kids on both sides.

A minister may have 13 children. It is a matter of choice, and some people naturally like large families so his talent in procreation might probably not be to his sexual vitality, but to fulfil biblical principles of being fruitful and proving it by multiplying to gratify a desire for a jumbo size family.

However, such a family size may attract queries bordering on population control and family planning.  “Mr So-and-so, Assuming every man had 13 children, can you estimate what the population of Sikaman will be? And will your government be able to provide jobs and schools for all?

But of course, that is, according to the questioner, a mere assumption and can, therefore never be the case. However, the question is relevant.

RIDICULE

The reason why all ministers-designate should be prepared for the worst is that some questioners may also be prepared to ridicule them. However, in the process, the aspiring minister’s patience is tested.

Is the man going to be a minister who easily flares up and starts misbehaving? And how would anyone know if he is not that type unless his annoyance gauge is not tested in public?

We may have a mister who would be slapping his staff left and right, occasionally throwing karate kicks when foreign dignitaries are around.

I hear that to be chosen as a minister is easier than preparing for the vetting. The problem that you wouldn’t know which skeleton in your cupboard will be exposed and which dirty linen will be advertised for all to see.  So some ministers designate have had sleepless nights and others have to be forced to do some fasting.

After fasting and praying, the aspiring minister must prepare his (or her) wardrobe for the occasion. How do ministers dress? Are they simple or flamboyant like peacocks?  Anyhow the minister-designate must start looking-like a minister, talking and acting like one.

He must wear a three-piece suit and get a stylish tailor. The suit in his wardrobe isn’t quite good. It would be okay for a poor aristocrat, not a newly nominated candidate who just learnt to cough and sneeze like a minister. He has even proven to his wife that he snores like a minister.

And when the day comes, must he merely walk or rather dance to take his seat to be vetted?  Should he smile broadly showing all his teeth or only some? He isn’t quite sure.       

One thing Parliament has forgotten is something called “Lie Detector Test”. It could be used only if candidates are answering questions about their past deeds. Everybody has cupboard skeletons, but that of some are too many. Fraudulence, immorality with teenage girls, exaggerated CVs, sexual harassment, whatever.

A Lie Detector may not be very accurate, but at least it can make ten children, but they declare only four.  The Lie Detector can be useful here.

But what is the relevance of all these when people argue that the more wayward the candidate the more efficient he is? They cite Bill Clinton. But his is an exception? Isn’t it?

This article was first published was on Saturday, February 10, 2001