As South Africa prepares for its national dialogue, it should keep in mind that Somalia is involved in a similar process. This dialogue will be Somalia’s latest in a series of national dialogues, the first having taken place in 1991.
Like Somalia, Sudan remains steeped in conflict despite past national dialogues. The same applies to the Democratic Republic of Congo. South Sudan is trapped in cycles of violence despite holding its national dialogue in 2017 to foster peace and national unity.
South Africa should consider these case studies carefully, as a national dialogue does not guarantee success and will not automatically wipe away the country’s problems.
Post-colonial Africa has undergone three kinds of national dialogues, and when South Africa eventually convenes its own, it will create a fourth type. The first wave of national dialogues took the form of sovereign national conferences at the end of the Cold War, primarily in Francophone countries. This began in Benin and Gabon in 1990 and spread to Congo (1991), Mali (1991), Togo (1991), Niger (1991), and the DRC (1992). These conferences are remembered for ushering in democratic order in these nations by expanding the political space and introducing multiparty systems. Yet in 2006, the Togolese came together once more for another national dialogue, motivated by their unrelenting desire for democratic reforms. The recent military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, the Republic of Guinea, and Gabon demonstrate that previous dialogues only skimmed the surface in trying to resolve the problems still facing our continent.
The second type of national dialogues aimed to address political instability and promote reconciliation within these countries. Kenya’s 2008 National Dialogue and Reconciliation was a response to the post-election violence that erupted in 2007-2008. The Arab Spring, which affected parts of North Africa and the Middle East in 2010, also prompted national dialogues, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia. In 2019, Mali participated in an initiative to directly confront the persistent violence and political instability that have plagued the country since its independence.
The third category involves the use of national dialogue as a mediation tool and peace-making mechanism in various contexts. This includes Chad in 2022 following the killing of former president Idriss Deby by rebel forces, and Ethiopia in 2022, after the two-year civil war of 2020 to 2022. The Sudanese and South Sudanese fall in this category. Somalia is also not giving up after several attempts such as their National Reconciliation Conference in 2007.
South Africa’s national dialogue is triggered by a pothole crisis. The country is stuck in a pothole, with a burst tyre, unable to move forward in the direction of Nelson Mandel’s vision. The pothole is not just a disheartening reality on our roads but a metaphor for systemic decline in the quality of governance that has affected us across the board — from load-shedding and the collapse of our public transport system to alarmingly high rates of crime and a nation uncertain and concerned about its future. The GNU is a reflection of a political paralysis that has crippled our country and a disillusionment with the state.
We have gained valuable experience that should serve as a dress rehearsal for our national dialogue. One notable example is the Imbizos, which are public participation forums that facilitate direct engagement between citizens and government leaders, including the president, to address community needs. Through the National Economic Development and Labour Council, the government engages collaboratively on a continuous basis with labour unions, businesses, and community organisations about relevant issues. Parliament’s public participation mechanisms, such as public hearings, written submissions, and interactions with committees, involve citizens in legislative and oversight processes.
By now we know that the Convention for a Democratic South Africa is not a model to follow. This time the proverbial man in the street must be at the centre.
The three types of dialogues were not just gatherings of concerned citizens sharing opinions about their country; they aimed to tackle the root causes of societal challenges and bring about meaningful transformations, even if that meant disrupting the existing constitutional order. In nearly all national dialogues, the goal was to generate a new constitutional framework to replace the existing one.
What will be the outcome of the South African national dialogue? Will it lead to a new constitutional dispensation? Will it address the underlying causes of the pothole crisis? If the dialogue does not engage with the root causes and lacks honest self-reflection and deep analysis, it will merely serve as a superficial façade, akin to a makeup artist enhancing a face while concealing fundamental flaws underneath.
These case studies offer valuable insights that are instructive. For a national dialogue to be successful, it should be nationally owned and insulated from external influences, from foreign donors who can use their cheque-books to influence the process or multilateral institutions who could sneak in their views through seconded experts.
Delays could occur before our national dialogue can begin. We may witness mass protests. There will be disagreements and boycotts over who should participate or be excluded. A national dialogue should be inclusive, bringing together friends and foes, allies and adversaries, all in the same room and around the same table. The process must begin at the grassroots level and work its way up. Citizens need to feel involved and connected to the process, much like the manner in which the Freedom Charter was crafted in 1955.
The dialogue may take longer than anticipated. Its demands may exceed the allocated budget. Follow-up dialogues may even be necessary. Its outcome could take the form of a symbolic declaration or a binding agreement that both government and parliament must ratify.
After the dialogue, the government should be transparent about the implementation modalities and the institutional provisions for monitoring and evaluation. The state must allocate fiscal resources for this implementation phase.
After the dialogue, many people will cry foul, claiming they were left out, deceived, or silenced. The government may even be accused of stage-managing the process. Many will dismiss the outcome as meaningless. We will hear disgruntled voices asserting that the dialogue was a waste of time or merely a whitewashing ritual for a political class that has lost legitimacy. Some may argue that it was simply another electioneering stunt.
But rest assured, a national dialogue is a valuable exercise for a troubled country. Those who avoid it end up like a stubborn person who, while knowingly suffering from a chronic illness, defiantly refuses to see a doctor.
A dialogue may not cure the country, it may even fail spectacularly, but it is worth the try. It has helped other countries, it has eased tensions in difficult situations, it can build trust and open a channel of communication between enemies. In East Africa, they say “you can never cross the ocean until you dare to lose sight of the shore”.
Maloka is a visiting professor at the Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation at the University of Johannesburg.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.