I want to get into this whole fracas with the express intentions of helping one or two souls.
But before I get very far with my intentions I need to align what I am about to do with who I am so that you understand why I think the way I do.
I am a student of hermeneutics which is a philosophical discipline.
Now this subject from online definitions refers to the interpretation of a given texts, speech, or symbolic expressions (such as art). However, it is also used to designate attempts to theorise the conditions under which such interpretation is possible.
Furthermore if I may, we hermeneutic thinkers and scholars argue that understanding is the interpretive act of integrating particular things such as words, signs, and events into a meaningful whole.
We only really understand an object, word, or fact when it makes sense within our own life context and thus speaks to us meaningfully.
I must also add that no one comes to the process of interpretation clean or from a vacuum so to speak.
We come to the interpretation of words, speeches, texts, actions and events heavily laden and equipped with our on biases.
So hermeneutics helps one or better still makes one aware of these inherent and subconscious biases so you guard against them and so that you are able to give the speaker a clean sheet when trying to understand what they said and did not say, or what they said by not saying what they could have said.
I mentioned that this is was a philosophical discipline and you can already see that I was not lying about that.
It also does mean that through one’s understanding of what has been said they can also get to know how they think or what their one personal biases are.
For example I often use the expression nonsense during my on air television engagements in analysis. I see no problem with this compound word because I am into logic.
However depending on where one comes from they could misconstrue the word to be an insult which it isn’t.
One has to know who I am to know that I can’t be the type that hurls insults certainly not on live television.
But on the other hand if and when they choose (and this is volitional make no mistake about it) to approach the process trying to understand my use of the word with the idea that I am mean and able to insult they will run away with that unfortunate meaning claiming I insulted…when in fact all I said what that something did not make sense…Often when I use it I can prove that it did not on many fronts.
With such a background I am sure we can now approach the statements of the IGP before the media from a firm and solid foundation.
Biases out of this hermeneutical process for now. I shall supply context and this can be both near and remote it depends on how far one wants to go.
We are dealing with a context in which we have had many kidnaps and in fact he ( the IGP) had called the media to speak about those.
We also have too many that have come to the public as police officers effecting arrests and we ended up with kidnaps.
The IGP knows too well how many are in the force who are not supposed to be in there and that cleaning process is probably going to bee very messy if it is to be done properly.
He also knows how many goons were given guns and power and are no longer able to access resources and means the were used to for far too long. It is upon such background of information that he was speaking from.
You also have to remember that he was asking the public to help the police apprehend lawless officers. Then someone interjected that they are armed!!At this he said stone them!!! (Ochola has since clarified that his comments were taken out of context).
My reading of this is that it is better to stop illegal arrests or anyone masquerading as one doing so than to allow that to continue and we end up with a new kidnap situation.
This is a police officer empowering the population first and foremost and one eager to create a hostile situation for anyone intending to masquerade as a police officer effecting a lawful arrest.
He also made us all aware what a lawful arrest shall look like from then hence forth which is fantastic given where we have been in the recent past.
We were at the mercy of police officers who were beyond reproach, and most surely could not be questioned, their kin the so called preventers of crime and the Kitattas whatever their role was…from the IGP we now know that the tide is changing and both the public and the police officers now are in the know.
This IGP in on the road speaking about respect for human rights to his officers. When was the last time that was done?
So when you fact all this in I am sure you can see what the IGP was trying to communicate although he may have gotten lost in translation given how quicken we in the media are in running away with news bytes since controversy makes the news.
I suggest that the issue here is hermeneutics and not really anything more than that.
I shall be back here again soon.