Aging & Wisdom Quote by Helen Suzman

The line is a tight piece of political jiu-jitsu: it grants the legitimacy of dissent while slamming the door on nostalgia. Suzman is marking out a third position that’s hard to hold in public life, especially in South Africa’s long transition from apartheid to something still unfinished. She’s insisting that critique is not betrayal, and that reform is not code for restoration.

The intent is defensive and offensive at once. Defensive, because in polarized climates criticism gets weaponized: if you attack the “current system,” you must secretly prefer the previous regime. Suzman refuses that trap. Offensive, because she also warns fellow critics against romanticizing the past as a cleaner alternative. The sentence draws a bright line between accountability and regression.

The subtext is biographical. Suzman spent years as a liberal anti-apartheid voice inside an apartheid parliament, criticized by the state for pushing too far and by parts of the liberation movement for not rejecting the institution outright. After 1994, the roles could invert: the new governing order needed scrutiny, and the old order suddenly gained a perverse afterlife in “things worked better then” murmurs. Her phrasing anticipates that cynical pivot.

What makes it work rhetorically is its balance of moral clarity and pragmatic restraint. “For all my criticisms” concedes imperfection without softening it; “it doesn’t mean” calls out bad-faith inference; “return” makes nostalgia sound like reversal, not comfort. It’s a reminder that democracy isn’t a reward you receive after struggle, it’s the argument you keep having without reaching for the emergency exit of yesterday.