Low blow foretaste of worse to come for Ramaphosa
South African politics is full of bulls**t. In 2005, Harry Frankfurt, a Princeton University philosopher, wrote a book, On Bulls**t, in which he sought to define the term.
Frankfurt says: “Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bulls**tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it.
“He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bulls**t is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
Our political discourse is the toilet, of course. In politics, bulls**t on its own does not always deliver the knockout punch. As an aide to former US president Richard Nixon put it, if one squeezes the b***s of one’s opponent hard enough, the heart and mind will follow … in due course.
This, I suspect, is the strategy behind the allegation that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa is not an uxorious husband. First, he was accused of pummelling his former wife. Now, he is being accused of being a “blesser” and cheat. Clearly, this allegation does not come from those who have been infected by his presidential ambitions.
But I don’t think his political enemies have served the main course yet. That is why, for his strategists, attack is the best defence in the time between the starter and the main course.
In this regard, there are several responses available to Ramaphosa’s team: lies, bulls**t or a combination of the two. If any of these must constitute the central pillar of their strategy, the truth is obviously not an option.
The mitigating factor here may be the very strong possibility that Ramaphosa’s opponents are not interested in the truth either.
Under such circumstances, what is more important than the truth is a persuasive narrative. A narrative does not have to be grounded in truth to be persuasive. It is for this reason that one may have to discuss the truth with the owner of a media empire. If the appearance of truth must be at the centre of bulls**t or lies as a strategy, legal action is critical. Ramaphosa went to court to stop the Sunday Independent from publishing lies about him.
Because I am not a lawyer, I do not understand why Ramaphosa (the main applicant) was, reportedly, not the deponent to the founding affidavit when the damaging claims that need refuting are about him. Maybe the political strategy became more important than legal opinion. Perjury, even when accidental, is a crime.
Another option is what lawyers call “confessing and avoiding”. You confess to the less damaging and completely deny the more damaging allegations. Another is to go on the offensive and ask your allies to do the same by:
● changing the subject — the problem is state capture, bearing in mind that your opponents have been trying to change the subject by saying the problem is white monopoly capital;
● playing the victim — I am a victim of the abuse of state intelligence resources. Not everyone knows that such revelations may also be a function of private intelligence operations; or
● not denying. Simply make the point that the abuse of state power is far more evil than womanising.
Assuming it is not too late, Ramaphosa must not lie. Bulls**t he may, assuming he has not already been feeding us this delicacy.