Annan didn’t hold mediation talks in Kenya

The Nation and other Kenyan media never ceased to mystify me by their daily reference to the Annan-chaired discussions as “mediation talks”.

No, I do not deny the possibility of “mediation talks”. When two or more sides fail to agree among themselves, they might invite a “neutral” party to help to reconcile them.

Indeed, Mwai Kibaki’s PNU and Raila Odinga’s ODM sat together for days to discuss both the principle of such a peacemaker and the particular individual.

In other words, these were not yet talks about the substance of reconciliation. They were still only talks about the principle of it and a mutually acceptable person.

They were talks merely about whether or not to submit collectively to a mediator. Such preliminary consultations are what one might call mediation talks.

Thus, in the PNU-ODM case, the mediation talks ended the minute the representatives agreed to invite Kofi Annan to chair the talks about the substance of reconciliation.

Here mediation, though a noun, functions as an adjective. It describes the noun talks.

This adjectival noun already conveys the idea that the person will interpose himself between the parties and remain in the middle till the end. That is why the Swedes call him an ombudsman (“man in the middle”).

But a different adjective from the same root-word is necessary to indicate that he is now actually in the middle and that the talks on substance are now under way.

In other words, the discussions have moved a rung up. They are no longer mediation talks but mediated talks.

This is the same difference as between “democracy talks and democratic talks”. Both are correct but do not mean the same thing.

The first refers to talks on whether or not to establish a democratic system. The second refers to talks governed by democratic principles.

To mediate is to put oneself in such a position — in the middle — as to facilitate understanding between two or more parties.

It is for that reason that we speak of mediated communication in reference to the newspapers, radio, TV and other such instruments.

These instruments are called media (singular: medium) because they mediate – that is to say, they come between people. Like Kofi Annan, they act as mediators. They purport to promote social understanding.

On the other hand, communication which does not pass through the media — but goes directly from mouth to ear – is said to be immediate.

Originally, immediate literally meant “unmediated”, that is to say, taking place without the help of anything (like Kofi Annan) in between.

This remains the most accurate meaning of the adjective “immediate”. Only later did it acquire the meaning of “in no time”, “on the spot”, et cetera.

Yet even this metaphorical meaning of immediate retains the idea that nothing — neither time nor Kofi Annan — has intervened to influence the event.

Mr Ochieng is a veteran journalist