Anytime I reflect deeply on some of the great quotes of one of the world’s best military tactician who lived, Napoleon Bonaparte – particularly the ones on love – I get confused.
Napoleon, the French soldier described by some historians as “the revolutionary on horseback”, had a way of impressing the numerous women who came into his life.
He told one: “As for me, to love you alone, to make you happy, to do nothing which would contradict your wishes, this is my destiny and the meaning of my life.”
But when Napoleon could not come to terms with the lessons he thought love had taught him, he had this to say to some friends: “Love is the idler’s occupation, the warrior’s relaxation, and the sovereign’s ruination.”
Then he declared: “Love is a silly infatuation, depend on it. Friendship is but a name, I love nobody.”
If you juxtapose these sayings with the murder case involving celebrated South African international blade runner, Oscar Pistorius, and his late girlfriend, Reeva Stennkamp, you get worried about the contradictions in love.
Those following the case of murder or not of Reeva by Oscar will be as confounded as yours sincerely about this four letter word called love – its realism or not. They will ask whether both parties actually loved themselves if all we have heard in the course of the case is anything to go by.
On Friday, September 12, Pistorius, the Olympic and Paralympic track sensation, was convicted of culpable homicide after having escaped the more serious charge of murder for killing Reeva.
Justice Thokozila Masipa, who described the offence as a felony, also convicted Pistorius of firing a pistol under the table of a packed Johannesburg restaurant. She cleared him of two other firearms charge – illegal possession of ammunition and firing a pistol out of the sun-roof of a car.
Masipa ruled that Pistorius acted negligently when he fired four shots from a 9mm pistol into a toilet door in his luxury Pretoria home, killing Reeva.
He will be sentenced on October 13. Culpable homicide – or manslaughter – carries up to 15 years in prison in South Africa.
But he has the right of appeal to avoid a custodial sentence altogether, because he has no previous convictions.
After the verdict absolving Pistorius of the murder of his girlfriend in February last year, my initial feeling was how feminists across the world would perceive it.
Indeed, the trial has been months of excruciating fact finding by both the prosecution and the defence attorneys into the circumstances that led to Pistorius playing host to the court for shooting Reeva dead in the wee hours of Lovers Day, February 14, 2013, of all days.
For as long as the trial lasted, many people had already on their own sentenced Pistorius to death. There were some who felt the trial was not necessary so long as someone had already died, more so a defenceless woman.
That, for sure, was probably the mentality with which so many people thronged the South African courtroom under excruciating tension to hear Masipa deliver her ruling on the matter. As far as they were concerned, it was fait accompli.
Even Pistorius, described as an extraordinary double amputee athlete, could have felt the same way when he arrived Pretoria’s High Court as a “murderer” going by the perception of most members of the public.
Looking at Pistorius seated in court in the morning of Thursday, September 11, his face betrayed all that was thought of him as a murderer. His face also showed that of a man who was not sure he was going to walk away from the door after the 41-day trial a freeman, without the stigma of a murderer.
All along, the prosecution sought his conviction for cold-blooded murder, notwithstanding that he insists that what transpired between him and Reeva was a tragic accident without premeditation, just to protect the two of them from intruders.
But Masipa felt differently when she ruled that the prosecution “failed to show requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone premeditation.”
She described Pistorius as a “very poor witness” who was “evasive” of prosecution enquiry, but said that did not provide enough grounds to find him guilty of premeditated murder, or even dolus eventualis – the grey area between premeditated murder and culpable homicide.
“Under dolus eventualis, if Pistorius should have foreseen that his actions could result in death, yet recklessly proceeded anyway, it still would have been considered murder in South African law. That would have come with a minimum sentence of 15 years,” the judge explained.
Feminists and their likes are angry that Pistorius did not bag a murder ruling. But the law, they say, is an ass.
Those who would condemn the judge for her ruling would do so on one major ground that is fast gaining international renown – domestic violence against women.
Domestic violence in all ramifications is condemnable. It neither makes for a peaceful home and good upbringing of children nor help society. Whether targeted at women or men, violence pays no one.
Watching Pistorius, he has not only being devastated as a person, but the incident that brought him into the court of public opinion has dented his image so much that he is simply a walking dead.
Yes, the man in him will try to show up, but deep down his spirit being, he is hunted by the action he took that led to the death of his girlfriend.
The lesson is simple. Who gains from domestic violence? Are Pistorius family members happy he is subjected to this sort of trial? The answer is no.
What of the family of Reeva? Will they ever forget the day Pistorius’s blade pierced the throat of their daughter to death?
Is there any lesson to learn from the unwavering support the Pistorius family, led by his uncle, Arnold, and younger sister, Aimee, displayed in court on September 11?
Was it not for the love of family that Pistorius’ elder brother, Carl, came from hospital in a wheelchair, where he was nursing injuries received from a near-fatal car crash last month to witness the pronouncement against his brother?
Asked by reporters why he came to the court despite his situation, he said he was determined to be at Oscar’s side because his brother needed him most.
Can we also say that Reeva’s family can be the same again after this incident? Does the high degree of equanimity with which Reeva’s parents, June and Barry, chose to honour their daughter where they sat in court not an indication that something had gone out of them?
Head or tail, both families have lost something they will never recover. They have lost love. Lost emotion. Lost a sense of humanity. Lost self-worth and dignity, among other things they did not bargain for.
And these are the things that come to play whenever domestic violence takes the centre stage in our lives. Regret creeps in. Agony takes its place in the heart.
What is important, really, is not how the ruling had gone, but what we should take away from this unfortunate saga.
For those who anticipated the judge to sentence Pistorius to death for murder, the question we should be asking is if the prosecution was able to prove that he fired directly at Reeva or through a bathroom glass.
If the answer is no, can we now see why he escaped the hammer of the judge as far as murder charge was concerned? Can we also see why the judge said the grounds for appeal could put Pistorius behind bars, that is, if he is found guilty of culpable homicide or manslaughter?
Whichever way it goes, I expect that when the whole drama is over Pistorius will find time to champion the campaign against domestic violence. He should not do it alone, but with the Steenkamp family. They must find a way to immortalising Reeva.
By so doing, they may end up recreating themselves and contributing better to this wicked world where life is not only short but brutish.
Wherever Pistorius is now, he should reflect on Napoleon’s thoughts on love.