There it is. President Pierre Nkurunziza was last Saturday nominated for the Presidency for the third time. Whereas his nomination was expected, there was still some suspense because the Burundian Constitution limits a person to two presidential terms. Now, as happened in Burundi, a person can gain nomination from his party, go on to serve three different times as president, but without actually violating the two-term provision of the constitution. 

What counts, at least in Burundi, is the process of how someone assumed the presidency, not the substance of having actually served those terms. If you are confused, you are hardly alone. For this reason, whether President Nkurunziza is running for his second or third term depends on whether one gives weight to the process or the substance.

Unfortunately for Nkuruziza, a rather large size of Burundians thinks it s the substance that counts most. As a result, many people in the opposition and even important personalities in his own political party have advised him to respect the substance, not to offer himself for the third term. Moreover, just a month ago the still influential former president of that country Pierre Buyoya went on record that the subject of term limits in Burundi is unambiguous. Buyoya went on to send a rather cryptic message to Nkurunziza that "No President in Burundi can hold power for more than two terms,” he told the media.

With that it seemed emerged a sense of certainty on both sides. This led a column in which seasoned journalist in this region tried to capture the mood in Burundi with the headline that read like this:  "Burundi walks a tightrope as president toys with unpopular third term idea.”

As a metaphor, walking a tightrope assumes a likelihood of falling. It usually implies a wisdom to step away from the rope. However, the man was going to run, come hell or high water. Indeed, an official from his party was quoted in the international media pouring cold water on any wisdom, suspense, or speculations, declaring, as it were, "Whatever happens, it will be President Nkurunziza, regardless of the consequences.”

Clearly, the official also recognises that his party is, in fact, walking a tight rope. But who cares! They are in it to win it, "regardless of the consequences.” And just like that, with that statement, things got a bit more interesting, if not disconcerting.

And with that we must ask ourselves some questions: To whom shall befall the consequences that the official is alluding to? One is inclined to think that the official does not imagine himself to be one of those who will assume any such consequences; otherwise, wouldn’t he have to temper his language to suit the sensibilities of someone walking a tightrope?

My thinking persuades me to believe that the official understands full well that such consequences are likely to befall the multitude of the masses. And for that he gives no damn. For him, and the like, damned are the wretched of the earth.

Besides, I’d have to be making all this up if it weren’t for the thousands – over 20,000, as of Monday –of Burundian refugees who have already poured into Rwanda, Exhibit A of said ‘consequences.’

More questions, still. First, why would the ambitions of one person place the entire country on a "tight rope?” Second, why would such a pursuit become so unmitigated to the extent that it must happen "regardless of the consequences?” And why is everyone so desperate or, rather, so reckless?

Seriously, what gives? Those in power are desperate to hold on for dear life; the masses are desperate for their lives because the first group has concluded that they want power "regardless of the consequences.”

It is frantic season, alright. One more question, though. Are there any lessons to draw from all this frenzy? I think so. First, our politics remains reckless. Second, our politics is distracting.  Third, our politicians are in it for themselves. Forth, as long as this is the state of things, there is urgent need that we organise our politics in such a way that the recklessness is minimised, a brand in which the interests of the politicians is aligned with those of the ordinary person.

Let me elaborate on the distractions. One is reminded that election season in the DRC usually leads to the reminder that the problems of that vast country are caused by part of its population that speaks Kinyarwanda, and that solutions could be found from either killing them or forcing them out of their homes.

At the height of the corruption scandals involving the high and mighty in Tanzania’s political circles recently, someone thought of the smart idea that the difficulties that their citizens were  facing in their daily lives were the result of the ‘illegal foreigners’ who must be repatriated to ‘where they belong.’

Therefore, there’s something structurally wrong with the brand of politics practiced in our midst. Sadly, except for maybe one or two countries, it seems like it is here to stay, "regardless of the consequences.”