How should we regard the proposed national dialogue? Could it be a watershed moment that in 2025 changes the way we engage to seek solutions to our myriad problems?
Or could it turn out to be another feel-good kumbaya moment that fills us with euphoria, only for it to be dashed by the hard realities of our divisive, narrow-minded political culture?
The concept of a national dialogue has been kicked around in public discourse for some time, spurred by the multiple and deepening crises facing the nation, plus the realisation that, to paraphrase former president Thabo Mbeki, no single political party has answers to all of the country’s problems. One of the strongest proponents of the dialogue, Mbeki has called for greater citizen participation in charting the future.
Inviting a broad range of South African interest groups should be relatively easy — alongside well-meaning patriots there will be no shortage of self-serving bandwagoners wanting to climb on board for personal gain or prestige.
More challenging will be the criteria for taking part. Despite a spirit of broad inclusivity, unrestricted participation would be unwieldy. Will there be red lines and preconditions?
For instance, will those who reject a constitutional democracy in favour of parliamentary supremacy be welcome? What about those who believe in capital punishment? Not forgetting those who want separate amenities and residential areas based on race or language.
It cannot be the purpose of the dialogue to identify the national issues crying out for resolution. Those we know only too well after 30 years of democracy. The biggest are economic inequality, SA being the world’s most unequal nation, with dangerously high unemployment levels.
This drives inequalities in other spheres of society, such as education and health, and sustains interracial alienation and hostility — rendering hollow the very concept of South African “rainbowism”. All against the backdrop of a stagnant economy.
The other plague is rampant crime which, in addition to a terrifying murder rate and house invasions, now includes mafia-style extortion and kidnapping. It traps both rich and poor in a life of permanent fearfulness.
Also, what would be the point of calling a “national” dialogue when the nation is racially divided in its neighbourhoods and lived experience, and nation building has been ditched despite politicians’ professed commitment?
If good fortune allows the dialogue to produce a consensus on what is to be done, who will be tasked with implementation? Every successful project requires a manager. The capacity to make things happen sits with the state, despite its well-known deficiencies. Who will instruct parliament to make the laws and government to implement them? Or will the dialogue’s role be simply an advisory one, its recommendations open to adoption or trashing, at the discretion of parliament or the state?
It remains to be seen whether parties joining the dialogue will be able to look beyond their longstanding animus, especially with the local elections on the horizon in 2026
Will the elected be willing or obligated to take direction — or listen to advice — from an unelected body of citizens, no matter how diverse and passionately patriotic they may be?
The nagging question is why we need a dialogue when we have a parliament where our supposed public representatives are paid handsomely from the fiscus.
The worst thing for the process would be to emerge with a shopping list with a gazillion action points. It’s not the length of the list that denotes progress, but its feasibility. As a country we are notorious for dreaming up lofty plans, then falling short on delivery.
Of particular interest will be the conduct of politicians and their parties in a process that is envisaged to be inclusive and politically non-partisan. Will they show the capacity to place the national interest, the well-being of all South Africans, above party preference and dogma? Will they display the same wilful deafness to their adversaries’ interests as they did on issues such as the Bela Act and National Health Insurance?
We know that the SACP, the EFF and elements in the ANC see the DA as a mortal enemy, bent on keeping black people in servitude, and the DA sees the EFF as a “doomsday” party. It remains to be seen whether parties joining the dialogue will be able to look beyond their longstanding animus, especially with the local elections on the horizon in 2026.
Despite its warm-and-fuzzy feelings, the process will be beneficial to the country only if participants are prepared to confront frankly the difficult issues (many of which have been in abeyance since 1994), instead of avoiding them in a quest for a false consensus.
The dialogue can be an event that takes us over the proverbial Rubicon, or inversely, the elephant which, after great promise, births but a puny mouse.
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.