Why should a crucial national decision bordering on the choice of a national anthem or reverting to the use of a former national anthem be hastily taken somehow unilaterally or undemocratically just by a few privileged people in authority for the generality of the entire citizenry? Is a tactically and logically delayed decision not far better than a hasty or hastened decision taken without cognisance of important factors or essential conditions that should have been put into consideration as the sine qua non of sound, timely and collectively taken decisions accepted to the vast majority of the people? Won’t ensuring proper planning preventing poor positions and permitting perfect performance have facilitated good decisions in respect of how, when and why the former national anthem was suddenly ousted or dethroned and the present national anthem was reinstated or enthroned and reintroduced by the powers that be or the strong forces in the corridors of power?
Couldn’t the myriad language experts, literary geniuses and communication gurus we have at home and across the globe be contacted or consulted and engaged to help to linguistically re-examine and overhaul the new old national anthem before its overnight re-adoption and declaration as the newly approved national anthem? Wouldn’t they have discovered and discouraged the persistent utilisation or retention of the obviously sexist or gender-biased lexemes of the reintroduced national anthem viz ‘brotherhood’ on line four of stanza one, ‘motherland’ on line six of the same stanza one and ‘no man’ on line four of stanza three of this anthem? Wouldn’t they have stressed the unsuitability, unpalatability and unacceptability of the gender-biased lexemes or expressions and recommended suitable, palatable and acceptable linguistic alternatives or equivalents without negative lyrical, poetic or semantic implications?
Wouldn’t the reintroduced national anthem be linguistically synonymous with an old wine in an old wineskin and not the assumed old wine in a new wineskin considering the fact that the present anthem is guilty of gender-biased language use just as the former anthem is equally guilty of sexist communication via the generic use of ‘fatherland’ and ‘heroes’ in stanzas one and two respectively? Is the reflection or retention of the sexist linguistic idiosyncrasies of the former anthem in the present national anthem not a flagrant disregard for the fundamental principle or concept of linguistic dynamism which explains or justifies positive changes in language use based on contemporary societal realities and which is in tandem with the postulation that change is the only constant thing or factor in life? Is it not axiomatic that things cannot continually be done the same old ways when expecting new results or better outputs just as a linguistically defective former anthem can’t be replaced with an equally linguistically defective present anthem when expecting a better linguistic examination or evaluation and positive linguistic impression of the masses?
Are the powerful people or forces behind the sudden re-enactment of the present national anthem not aware of the global condemnation and persistent campaigns against all forms of gender-based discrimination, including sexist communication which mostly denigrates the feminine gender and sometimes disparages the masculine gender? Are they not conscious of the fact that the people who are linguistically alienated in the sexist ways ideas are disseminated in the national anthem that epitomises or encapsulates the country’s history, philosophy, sociology, psychology and ideology will always feel discriminated against and highly disturbed? Don’t the agents of the sudden change of the national anthem recognise the fact that linguistic sexism or sexist communication is a form of linguistic violence that can inflict emotional wounds or psychological injuries on the minds of the concerned or affected people which can be susceptible to far-reaching consequences?
Can’t the sexist cum semantically ambiguous ‘brotherhood’ on the fourth line of the first stanza of the present national anthem be successfully replaced with equally tri-syllabic lexemes like ‘unity’ and ‘unison’ with semantic similitude or ‘nationhood’ which is another tri-syllabic word that shares the same suffix ‘hood’ with brotherhood? Can’t the expressions ‘In unity we stand’, ‘In unison we stand’ or ‘For nationhood we stand’ which all have similar rhythmic patterns as well as hexa-syllabic lines, lyrically and musically replace the obviously sexist or gender-biased expression ‘In brotherhood we stand’? Won’t the stanza still maintain its musicality or sonority with the logical lexical replacement of the vitiating sexist word ‘brotherhood’ that is also semantically complex just as the flower known as rose will equally smell good when called by another name as posited by William Shakespeare, the legendary English poet and playwright?
Can’t the gender-neutral and unproblematic words ‘native land’, safely used initially on line two of stanza one of the recently reintroduced national anthem, replace the sexist or gender-specific word ‘motherland’ on line six of the same stanza one of the national anthem to eliminate the second linguistic element of sexism or sexist communication of the first and usually the main stanza of the national anthem? Won’t it just simply look like a stylistic foregrounding of the words ‘native land’ as the terminal lexeme of the second and sixth lines of the first stanza of the anthem which can be seen as a form of emphatic repetition or repetition for emphasis that is sometimes employed as a fundamental poetic device or figurative technique to convey or pass special meanings across to the target audience?
Can’t the androgynous bi-syllabic indefinite pronoun ‘no one’ also successfully replace or conveniently serve as the gender-neutral linguistic alternative or substitute of the misogynistic expression ‘no man’ on line four of stanza three of the present oxymoronic new old national anthem somehow imposed on the vast majority of the astonished citizens? Won’t it amount to what Chinua Achebe, the great Nigerian novelist of blessed memory, described as sitting beside the river and washing the hands with spittle to stick to the use of the controversial gender-biased ‘no man’ where there is an uncontroversial gender-balanced indefinite pronoun ‘no one’ that depicts language flexibility as opposed to linguistic rigidity?
Shouldn’t the decision to replace the national anthem or reintroduce the former national anthem have been done more democratically or collectively and not somehow autocratically or unilaterally considering the fact that this is a democratic dispensation and noting Abraham Lincoln’s definition or semantic interpretation of democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for a referendum to have been conducted prior to the approval and reintroduction of the former national anthem to be doubly sure the idea is acceptable to the vast majority of the citizens, to ensure it is in tandem with the contemporary yearnings of the masses and to confirm it is the people’s priority at the present moment of socio-economic challenges? Who would have challenged the legality or otherwise of the procedure or approach employed by governmental authorities in the reintroduction of the formal national anthem that people are now forced to relearn if the idea emanated from the masses or they were carried along as patriotic citizens of this great nation?
Why are the people in authority sometimes not taking the right steps at the right time in the right ways to get the right results that are commensurate with people’s expectations and which will eventually bring about the much desired positive changes or societal transformation that will make everybody to be so proud of this nation and those at helms of affairs at all levels? Why are some powers that be still putting the cart before the horse as if steady progress can be made by any individual, organisation, society or nation that persistently doesn’t do things rightly or correctly, especially in ways or manners that guarantee systematic and sustainable development? Hope the various fundamental issues quizzically articulated or presented in respect of the linguistic sexism or sexist communication of the oxymoronic new old anthem will be positively considered so that both the message and language of the anthem will be impeccable as necessitated by Marshall McLuhan’s theoretical postulation that the medium is the message?
