While the idea behind the National Dialogue sounds noble, even noble ideas can be squandered by inefficiency, incompetence, and political ego, writes Qaanitah Hunter.
Will the National Dialogue be Thabo Mbeki’s or Cyril Ramaphosa’s legacy project?
This is the salient question at the heart of the recent fallout between the government and the National Legacy Foundations, a group of organisations representing political, cultural, and civil society interests, which has now pulled out of the three-day National Dialogue convention, scheduled to start on Friday.
The National Dialogue isn’t a new idea.
In fact, before Ramaphosa even became president, former president Mbeki was championing it.
READ | Mondli Makhanya: UDF legacy must guide all National Dialogue ideas
Back in 2016, Mbeki convened a gathering of heritage foundations in an attempt to spark a conversation about the future of South Africa’s democracy.
I remember speaking to him, and to former president FW de Klerk, about why they believed the 1994 consensus needed to be renewed.
They argued that the social and political compact that brought South Africa into democracy had run its course and that we needed to sit down as a nation and decide what came next.
Mbeki tried, more than once, to get this process off the ground, but it never gained real momentum.
Fast-forward to Ramaphosa’s presidency: he began speaking about the National Dialogue a few years ago, but it was largely sidelined in the build-up to the 2024 elections.
Only after the ANC suffered its worst electoral result in history, forcing it into a government of national unity, did the president make the dialogue a top priority.
Divided opinion
For those who’ve missed the headlines, the National Dialogue is pitched as an inclusive, country-wide conversation that will bring together hundreds of organisations from multiple sectors to confront South Africa’s deep political, social, and economic challenges.
Think of it as a giant national meeting, with the aim of rebuilding trust, renewing the democratic consensus, and mapping out the country’s next chapter.
It sounds noble. But here’s the problem: even noble ideas can be squandered by inefficiency, incompetence, and political ego.
From the moment Ramaphosa announced the dialogue, it divided opinion.
Some believe it could genuinely shape the country’s future.
Others see it as an expensive talk shop and a distraction from the real work of governing.
READ | ‘Desperately needed’: National Dialogue cannot fail, says Anglican archbishop
If it is to work, its success will hinge entirely on how it is structured and managed.
That means precise planning, competent logistics, and transparent ownership.
Right now, the lines are fuzzy.
Which department is actually paying for this? Who is the political head responsible? If it’s the deputy president’s office, will it thrive or sink in their hands?
Ramaphosa often speaks as though he can operate above the machinery of the state, but he doesn’t always appreciate the limitations of the government he leads.
Mbeki, on the other hand, wants to shape the process in a way that may not be entirely practical.
There are urgent, unglamorous details to get right:
- Who exactly coordinates the Eminent Persons Group?
- Do they understand what’s required of them?
- Is communication sufficient?
- What checks and balances are in place for the budget?
- Who determines value for money?
The recent breakdown between the government and the foundations, with the latter accusing the state of making the process too top-down, and the state retorting that it’s footing the bill, is a clear sign that there’s a power struggle at play.
At best, this could become a meaningful, inclusive process, with 200 organisations from 30 sectors shaping a year-long series of national conversations.
At worst, it could turn into an expensive, box-ticking exercise – or a vanity project for two former leaders who both want the same thing, but have competing visions of how to get there.
It has to be about the people
And then there’s the risk that no one wants to talk about: emergency procurement, overspending, and, two years from now, the Auditor-General telling us that the dialogue was yet another feeding trough for the connected and the greedy.
If we’re serious about making this work, it cannot be about Mbeki or Ramaphosa’s legacies and egos.
It has to be about the people, and it must be structured in a way that protects it from the very poisoned political culture it is meant to help fix.
Talking doesn’t harm anyone.
But if we’re not alive to the risks, if we’re blinded by an idealistic vision of a utopian national conversation, we may well end up with another well-meaning idea undermined by the system it was designed to correct.
Someone has to micromanage this dialogue – with vigilance, transparency, and accountability.
And it has to be done for the country, not for political vanity.
- Qaanitah Hunter is a political journalist and author.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers’ submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
5482
