It must be a long time since the Mail & Guardian published an article as pedantic as the one by Sipho Seepe (“Language, truth and logic”, October 5).
He makes all kinds of outrageous epistemological claims in a pompous response to Evidence wa ka Ngobeni’s simple suggestion that Seepe’s conclusion that there is no difference between the notorious late Zairean dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko and President Thabo Mbeki was made “without adequate thought and evidence”.
His argument appears to amount to this: differences of philosophical or political opinion can only be resolved through syllogistic reasoning or mathematical formula.
He appears, astonishingly, to be making the further claim that the world of politics and society can be understood by the same methodologies as the physical world. Hence, the pious sermon about Euclid and Newton.
The world of politics and society of course, have their own categories of analysis and interpretive disciplines, (Marxism, Liberalism, classes, power, states, etc.).
Seepe appears to think that there is always either a right or a wrong answer to a political issue and that those who have opinions with which he disagrees are either illogical or “dishonest”.
Let’s for instance consider his opinion which quite extraordinarily, he appears to consider to be a “proposition” having the status of a “law of physics” that “the silence from (dis)honourable members of the ANC is a reflection of either intelligence or their moral integrity”.
To be sure, public representatives who are members of political parties face moral choices every day.
There are times when conscience will require public criticism of party positions and leaders, and even resignation. HIV/Aids may be one of them.
Seepe, in his rush to judgement, demands particularly of members of the ANC that they should abandon proper and honourable political conduct in order to satisfy his exacting but entirely ill-conceived standards which are incompatible with politics as a collective endeavour.
Seepe reaches what I believe to be erroneous conclusions, because he has looked in the wrong place for his categories of analysis. The debate on the role and limits of party discipline would be better advanced by analysis of the nature and purpose of political parties in democratic systems. It is evident from all Seepe’s writings that he has simply not bothered with the substantial literature on the subject perhaps because there are no convenient formulae to be found there.
Perhaps he should recognise that there are many ways to contribute to the public good. One way may be to write regular columns for the M&G. Another certainly, is to become disciplined members of political parties. Firoz Cachalia, Gauteng Legislature