Inside The Quagmire Of Ananias Nghifiteko’s ‘Poison Ink’

I LAST read the e-mail letters of Ananias Nghifiteko and his/her musketeers in 2005.

Certainly, it was not out of a lack of consideration for Ananias as a writer who seeks relevance, but I have simply stopped looking at his/her (their) “work” as useful for analytical purposes in our politics. Therefore, it is somehow perplexing to note that his/her work has provoked responses from the highest levels of our politics, notably the founding president and most recently Prime Minister Nahas Angula by way of a communiqué detailing Ananias’s “poison ink” as a “third force” busy tearing apart our peace.Now, that is serious stuff.Admittedly, I have no clue about what he said about Nahas Angula to elicit such a response.Nevertheless, I consider that detail of no interest.Yet I can vouch that ordinarily crossing the sore imagination of this anonymous e-mailer as I did recently, means that you are either a cowboy or a crook.Just like in many of those clichéd Hollywood scripts it is a matter of the good guys (the cowboys) against the bad guys (crooks).Judging from what he wrote about me, rather incoherently as a consequence of what I said in one of my columns, I have no illusions that I am, in Ananias’s Western, a crook.In particular, I took it rather graciously that Ananias referred to me meanly amongst many things as a “useless fellow” and it is for this reason that I have been in two minds as to whether to reply to Ananias through my space.As a consequence, I took a bit long to respond since I was researching about Ananias, the person.Sadly, my research came to naught, apart from a mere curious coincidence when I met a certain Nghifiteko, who told me that he was not related to Ananias, but kindly informed me that he heard that Ananias studied in the United States.Oddly, a number of large unknowns still remain about Ananias.And since our own ‘Stasi’ can’t track Ananias, maybe out of choice, we might pass over the case to the now equally ineffectual CIA.In fact, this response is not borne out of frustration or a sense of utmost loathing because Ananias referred to me as a “useless fellow” and by extension an intellectual lemming.What Ananias wrote about me is totally unexceptional, tedious and would pass into history largely unnoticed.In essence, I am rather undisturbed that there are those who out of thoughtlessness start to look at others through Nghifiteko’s eyes.However, this is not the thread that I wish to defend here.I concede and really don’t mind being a crook, since there are many in Ananias’s creative poison pen.In any case, as Nghifiteko’s avid readers would have noted by now, depending on what you do subsequent to what he writes about you, conversion from a crook to a cowboy is a distinct possibility.In that connection, I am confident that I might say something accidentally or deliberately that will put me in the good books of Ananias, thus becoming a good guy.As such I don’t see the reason why we act like those lesser butlers referred to by Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘The Remains of the Day’ who at the slightest provocation abandon their professional being, tear off their suits and run about screaming to defend the private one.But then I may retort that such hypocrisy has come to characterise our political life and our politicians.They only respond once their names have been slandered by the Ananiases of this world.They hardly ever tear off their suits or get into a fight to defend serious principles and ideas.We respond to Ananias out of irritation and if we are pleased we simply nod in agreement.As long as Ananias is on the case of others, they remain indifferent.Excuse me for putting it so coarsely, but the word dignitas (dignity) is beyond many of our politicians and ourselves.Of course you may argue that it is also out of sheer hypocrisy that I am responding to Nghifiteko in this column.You may have a point, but that is not the point here.Getting irritated by what Ananias writes would make me a lesser butler, but I think that there are more compelling reasons why we ought to discard Ananias and look at him through the only thing he is in our grim political life: entertainment.In doing so, we will turn his ‘poison ink’ into what entertainment has always been: harmless.I must admit that feeling a sense of urgency now over an issue that has been going on in the public debate for a long time may seem a bit odd.Yet, I think that there are legitimate concerns as a free nation as to why we should cast this ‘useful fellow’ aside.On the whole, I think that Ananias is not worth our excessive obsession as is the case at the moment.It is trivial and not the stuff of which serious politics is made.Similarly, I don’t understand why a free nation that ought to be confident would be so inebriated with anonymous e-mail letters to the extent that they extract responses at the highest levels of politics and the state.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon Sorbonne, France.Therefore, it is somehow perplexing to note that his/her work has provoked responses from the highest levels of our politics, notably the founding president and most recently Prime Minister Nahas Angula by way of a communiqué detailing Ananias’s “poison ink” as a “third force” busy tearing apart our peace.Now, that is serious stuff.Admittedly, I have no clue about what he said about Nahas Angula to elicit such a response.Nevertheless, I consider that detail of no interest.Yet I can vouch that ordinarily crossing the sore imagination of this anonymous e-mailer as I did recently, means that you are either a cowboy or a crook.Just like in many of those clichéd Hollywood scripts it is a matter of the good guys (the cowboys) against the bad guys (crooks).Judging from what he wrote about me, rather incoherently as a consequence of what I said in one of my columns, I have no illusions that I am, in Ananias’s Western, a crook.In particular, I took it rather graciously that Ananias referred to me meanly amongst many things as a “useless fellow” and it is for this reason that I have been in two minds as to whether to reply to Ananias through my space.As a consequence, I took a bit long to respond since I was researching about Ananias, the person.Sadly, my research came to naught, apart from a mere curious coincidence when I met a certain Nghifiteko, who told me that he was not related to Ananias, but kindly informed me that he heard that Ananias studied in the United States.Oddly, a number of large unknowns still remain about Ananias.And since our own ‘Stasi’ can’t track Ananias, maybe out of choice, we might pass over the case to the now equally ineffectual CIA.In fact, this response is not borne out of frustration or a sense of utmost loathing because Ananias referred to me as a “useless fellow” and by extension an intellectual lemming.What Ananias wrote about me is totally unexceptional, tedious and would pass into history largely unnoticed.In essence, I am rather undisturbed that there are those who out of thoughtlessness start to look at others through Nghifiteko’s eyes.However, this is not the thread that I wish to defend here.I concede and really don’t mind being a crook, since there are many in Ananias’s creative poison pen.In any case, as Nghifiteko’s avid readers would have noted by now, depending on what you do subsequent to what he writes about you, conversion from a crook to a cowboy is a distinct possibility.In that connection, I am confident that I might say something accidentally or deliberately that will put me in the good books of Ananias, thus becoming a good guy. As such I don’t see the reason why we act like those lesser butlers referred to by Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘The Remains of the Day’ who at the slightest provocation abandon their professional being, tear off their suits and run about screaming to defend the private one.But then I may retort that such hypocrisy has come to characterise our political life and our politicians.They only respond once their names have been slandered by the Ananiases of this world.They hardly ever tear off their suits or get into a fight to defend serious principles and ideas.We respond to Ananias out of irritation and if we are pleased we simply nod in agreement.As long as Ananias is on the case of others, they remain indifferent.Excuse me for putting it so coarsely, but the word dignitas (dignity) is beyond many of our politicians and ourselves.Of course you may argue that it is also out of sheer hypocrisy that I am responding to Nghifiteko in this column.You may have a point, but that is not the point here.Getting irritated by what Ananias writes would make me a lesser butler, but I think that there are more compelling reasons why we ought to discard Ananias and look at him through the only thing he is in our grim political life: entertainment.In doing so, we will turn his ‘poison ink’ into what entertainment has always been: harmless.I must admit that feeling a sense of urgency now over an issue that has been going on in the public debate for a long time may seem a bit odd.Yet, I think that there are legitimate concerns as a free nation as to why we should cast this ‘useful fellow’ aside.On the whole, I think that Ananias is not worth our excessive obsession as is the case at the moment.It is trivial and not the stuff of which serious politics is made.Similarly, I don’t understand why a free nation that ought to be confident would be so inebriated with anonymous e-mail letters to the extent that they extract responses at the highest levels of politics and the state. * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon Sorbonne, France.