It's the words we say unguarded that often catch us out.
ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa's instruction to vote or else the "boers" will come back to power was said in one of those unguarded moments.
Speaking to a disgruntled resident in Seshego, Limpopo, Ramaphosa let fly with the remark, justifying it later by saying his approach worked as the woman had bought "the story".
Indeed.
If you're surprised by that sort of fear-mongering from the usually moderate businessperson and politician, you're not the only one. His name trended on Twitter on Monday following the Star's report of the incident as incredulous South Africans derided his statement.
Ramaphosa may well have been inspired by his surroundings: the hometown of the ANC's exiled enfant terrible Julius Malema. The area is said to be a stronghold for Malema's new party, the Economic Freedom Fighters.
Perhaps Ramaphosa was trying to rise – or more accurately, fall – to the standards set by that fiery youth leader and his particular brand of invective.
Raising the spectre of a resurgence of apartheid rule seems deeply irrational for a politician of Ramaphosa's standing. "If all South Africans don't vote, we will regress. The boers will come back to control us," he told the mother of three in Seshego, who blamed the country's high unemployment rate on the ANC and said she had lost hope in the party.
When I first read the remark I thought there must have been a good explanation. I began wondering what exactly Ramaphosa could have meant with his statement.
The word "boer" is an ambiguous and loaded term. Literally and originally it means farmer, but it grew to refer to all Afrikaans people in general. During the struggle against apartheid the word became a catch-all phrase for the apartheid government, largely run and administrated by Afrikaans people. And for some, it was synonymous with white control.
Which of these meanings did Ramaphosa mean, and did any of them justify his statement?
Surely he did not mean the apartheid government would literally come back. The last time I checked the Afrikaans right-wing could barely stage a take-out of the ANC's top leaders at Mangaung, never mind a full-scale return to power.
I went with the most generous interpretation I could think of: perhaps Ramaphosa was referring to the disproportionate monopoly white people have in the South African economy and in business.
(Before the Red October-type commentators start frothing at the mouth over this assertion about white monopoly in the economy, read this article and others. It's a fact.)
The lack of participation in the economy by black South Africans, in proportion to what they make up in the population, is a real concern and a recipe for continued inequality and disgruntlement.
Is that what Ramaphosa meant? If one didn't vote, the current status quo of white dominance in the higher echelons of the economy would continue?
If so, his thesis that a vote for the ANC would prevent such a situation was blatantly false: up till now the party has done little to budge the needle where broad-based black economic empowerment (BEE) is concerned.
First, there is the party's problematic approach to BEE – which has seen a small minority of black elite who are politically connected repeatedly benefit from enrichment while the majority remains poor and disenfranchised. This has been one of the lasting and saddest legacies of the ANC's nearly 20 years in power.
Secondly, there is the deeply problematic education system that has produced black schoolchildren and students who are unable to compete in the marketplace and move up the corporate ladder at a meaningful pace.
Together these two factors, along with many others largely fostered by the ANC, mean that white people will continue to dominate the economy at the top levels and the majority of black South Africans will continue to struggle to rise up the economic ladder.
So to the woman in Seshego, I say: ignore Ramaphosa's directive to vote ANC lest the boers return. Not just because the statement is nonsensical or devious, but because at its most generous interpretation it's just plain false.