Writing in the current issue of Quadrant magazine, Paul Prociv says, ‘The field of Aboriginal affairs is awash with sloppy terminology. Saturated with words glibly thrown around as if we all took their meaning for granted without any clear definition.’ One of the most empty and meaningless these words is ‘reconciliation’. The word first appears in English around 1390 – and its core meaning is ‘restoring friendship, agreement, harmony’ (Oxford English Dictionary). ‘Reconciliation’ is a clear process with a definite end point – being reconciled. If Uncle George and Uncle Harry have an argument over politics at the family Christmas lunch, they are estranged. But if, on Boxing Day, they put their differences aside and shake hands then they are ‘reconciled’. ‘Reconciliation’ always aims at a clear, identifiable end point.

However, if you look at the website of Reconciliation Australia you will find no clear evidence of (a) division between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, and – most importantly – (b) no clear end point being aimed at. Here is how the website defines the word: ‘Reconciliation is about strengthening relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, for the benefit of all Australians.’ They then add, ‘Reconciliation is an ongoing journey that reminds us that while generations of Australians have fought hard for meaningful change, future gains are likely to take just as much, if not more, effort.’ In other words – their so-called ‘reconciliation’ is endless. This is not what the word means. This is a bureaucracy ensuring that they will go on being employed while nothing substantial will be achieved, because no end point is defined. This carelessness with words is not helping.

‘Mandamus’ is a very old English legal term that has surfaced again recently in the (endless) court actions being brought against Donald Trump. Judge Aileen Canon is presiding over felony charges against Trump in the matter of him holding classified documents after he left office. She looks to be acting with judicial independence. She has dismissed some of the claims from Trump’s legal team to have the matter dismissed.

At the same time, she keeps clashing with President Joe Biden’s special counsel Jack Smith. The trial is yet to be scheduled, but already Smith is threatening that if she does not issue the order he has asked for he will seek a ‘writ of mandamus’ for force her to do so. This word ‘mandamus’ means ‘an official order from a court of law stating that a person or organisation must do a particular thing’. (Cambridge English Dictionary). The word ‘mandamus’ came into English well before the 1500s from a classical Latin word meaning (literally) ‘we command’. Back in those days it was ‘a writ or mandate issued by a monarch, directing the performance of a particular act’ (Oxford English Dictionary).

Later, when kings and queens gave up the business of issuing commands of this sort, the word came to mean an order from a higher court to a lower court saying, ‘This is what you have to do.’ And that’s what Joe Biden’s attack dog Jack Smith wants to happen in this case. He appears not to want a ‘black letter’ judge who will rule on the basis of the letter of the law. He wants a compliant judge who will help hound Donald Trump. It is not a good look.