In relation to what Rhoda purports, me [and others] to have said, She says: “When Zille said she would be prepared to join a realignment of political forces for the good of SA , Ebrahim Fakir and Steven Friedman immediately repudiated the idea, instead of welcoming such an initiative.”
Of course nothing could be further from the truth. What Rhoda does, is disingenuously twist language to paint a particular reality, one which is in fact, unreal. What I said [Steven can speak for himself], was in essence far from repudiating the idea, and more a questioning of easy assumptions, something we are expressly meant to do. The merits of demerits of what we write and say are open to scrutiny and debate, but I am sure you agree, that the distortion of what we write and say to send a particular political message, without engaging in the substance of it, is distasteful.
In any event, I have a thicker skin than that, and even though it takes too much time and energy to fix what she distorts, I might yet write a response when I find the time.
Far from the reflexive dismissal Rhoda assumes and [wrongly] attributes regarding “a realignment of political forces” and my repudiation of it – it is something I might actually welcome under specific conditions” i.e: the requisite amounts of credibility and legitimacy, the core minimum of a political and policy programme, some ideological thrust. After all, what is a political force without an ideology? This is what I originally questioned, as I did a series of other things, and that is what Rhoda purports to be “repudiation” of the idea. Under such conditions, in which her logic is a simple and twisted binary, what kind of discourse on citizenship can anyone have? And then she passes herself off as a “human rights activist”
In any case, one final thought – surely it is inconsequential, even immaterial, if I, or others accept, reject, repudiate or welcome any such idea. The electorate and the society are there to pronounce on it. So why should Rhoda make a big deal about it, anyway. What does it matter? It is in that sense then, that it becomes clear that Rhoda’s rantings are ad-hominem – without any basis in fact and, and which failed to grapple with the content and substance of what was said and written. In short, she seemingly wants to play politics – and turn into politicians – those who are expressly not so! We may be political, but we are certainly not politicians.
I think her warning that “Feinstein and his ilk will wake up, after the party, and, I fear, with a hangover that will be incurable” may be most appropriate in her own case. A hangover signals a move to sobriety, she simply seems to be in a state or permanent inebriation.