In our respective native languages, the word "komanyoko" is loose translation for dirty, very dirty. Many other filthier meanings can be attributed to it but all these drive to a common end, that is nasty and displeasing. Anything nasty is thus not pleasant or desirable in anyone's sight.
The campaign and election period may finally be here in Makerere University and particularly Law School to which I am affiliated. For some it is the most interesting period but for others it is a trying moment. It presents with it passion laden moments where tensions sore, emotions blur reasoning and some nearly come to fistfights. But that is only a tip of the iceberg as the core of many campaigns involves mudslinging, dirty tricks and those political manoeuvres that go beyond mere negative campaigning. I once asked Martin (a friend of mine) why he didn't have passionate interest in Law School politics and his answer shocked me. He claimed they were too soft, they didn't involve candidates tearing themselves apart and going for each other's throats. Whereas he considers it soft, I think it is far from that.
Sleaze has not developed in modern politics but can be traced as far back as the US Presidential election of 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Jackson was from a humble background and yet his opponent was a polar opposite. There was so much dirt in this campaign including calling Jackson's mother an immigrant prostitute and Jackson himself a murderer. By the time Jackson won the election, the campaign had badly affected his wife that she died even before entering the White House. That was how bad it was. Abraham Lincoln was personally attacked for his looks. His democratic foe called him a "horrid-looking wretch". This was a core strategy to rally people against him.
In this day and age, tricks have become sleeker. An example is the Kennedy/Nixon contest of 1960, which involved the first ever debate to be aired on live television. Prior to the debate both candidates had agreed that neither would use makeup but both broke the rule. On top of that, Nixon's team knew that their candidate broke a sweat easily, so they set the thermostat to keep the studio nice and cool. But Kennedy's team also knew about the Vice-president's hyperhidrosis and secretly turned the temperature up a few degrees. When the cameras began to roll, the difference between the candidates was striking to audiences watching at home. Kennedy appeared youthful and relaxed while Nixon, who was only four years older than his opponent, poured sweat and repeatedly had to dry his face with a handkerchief. The debate was viewed by 70million people and Kennedy won by just over 100,000 votes. A few degrees on the thermostat may have made the difference. Such is the ingenuity in modern day politics and given that beauty is still a huge factor in many elections at present, that trick may not be antiquated as yet.
Nicolo Machiavelli opines that the first method for estimating the intelligence of a leader is to look at the people he has around him/her. I have heard for a fact that some of the hocus-pocus in the respective camps is engineered not by the candidates but by those around them. I wouldn't however be so credulous as to believe that, because the greatest aspect of any leader is their ability be in control of those under them. If they can't control their own camp then it is very much unlikely that they can succeed in convincing us that they can control a bigger establishment. But on the other hand I think some candidates simply have no ideas and they adopt the smear campaign as a strategy for them to win. The campaign is lowered to a position where there is exchange of insults rather than ideas. The insult oriented candidate lowers the idea oriented candidate to their level (of insults) and beats them with experience. Such is the tragedy that has befallen our student politics.
I will conclude with the words of Donald Trump (the American President), who says that one of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace; good people don't go into government. However that is not to say that we don't have very good leaders.
