Editorial: Whose dialogue is it anyway?
The National Dialogue has not even begun and has already become irrevocably politically tainted — exactly the thing it was not supposed to be.
Democratic Alliance leader John Steenhuisen declared three weeks ago that his party would be withdrawing from the process after its deputy minister, Andrew Whitfield, was sacked while ANC corruption-accused ministers remained in their jobs. Those of an ANC inclination have flipped the allegation and said the DA is using the occasion for political point scoring.
Former president Thabo Mbeki added his voice to the mêlée in an open letter to Steenhuisen. He subtly reminded everyone that it was he who first put forward the idea of a dialogue early last year.
President Cyril Ramaphosa, meanwhile, is insistent that the event will not — contrary to common scepticism — be a talkshop and will benefit the ordinary person.
Of course, the ordinary person has come to despise the political wrangling that has characterised South Africa's public space. The wrangling that has threatened the government of national unity time and again over the last year. Exactly the type of wrangling that we're now watching.
It's difficult to trace the genesis of the idea of a 'national dialogue'. It's not one that belongs to Mbeki or Ramaphosa. Or anybody else.
The theme of dialogue is a common one in the country and is writ large in our history. The conferences and conversations that took place in and around the dying days of apartheid were a prerequisite to the democracy we enjoy today.
Such is the hatred in our past that the South African project cannot exist on an unspoken social contract. It's an ideal we all have to explicitly buy into.
As the rapidly declining election turnout figures tell us, the bickering political world is floating away and is no longer tethered to the realities that the rest of us face. That is why sentiments for a 'national dialogue' have been simmering and murmured with increasing vigour over the last decade — long before any politician verbalised them.
Even setting aside the purported gargantuan cost (another matter entirely), how can we take as legitimate a series of conversations that will invariably not represent all national interests and between people who are clearly not capable of civil dialogue?
The irony will not be lost on most South Africans. They are desperate for a national dialogue of some form, but the platform they are now offered is being undermined by the very people who have necessitated it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Diplomatic coup in offing?
The president assumed the low-belly crouch that in the animal jungle signals deference, even submissiveness. President Cyril Ramaphosa may yet pull off a diplomatic coup. He has signalled that the ANC is willing to compromise. Perhaps even grovel. Not with the US, naturally. No, the olive branch is being extended to the South African Communist Party (SACP). Speaking this week at the SACP's national congress, the president assumed the low-belly crouch that in the animal jungle signals deference, even submissiveness. The ANC, he said, fully recognised the SACP's autonomy and acknowledged that its members who also belonged to the ANC were 'full members of our movement'. But, he added, those rights came with obligations. This petty, factional sideshow is instructive. It reveals much about Ramaphosa's – and the ANC's – priorities at this moment of national crisis. Their attention is not on the wrecking ball heading South Africa's way. Admittedly, Ramaphosa has not been entirely idle. On Thursday – the very day the devastating 30% tariffs kicked in – he telephoned President Donald Trump. It would, of course, be wonderful if the mercurial Trump had a change of heart in response to his tête-à-tête with Ramaphosa. That's wishful thinking. Just last week, he made his feelings clear: he's unlikely to attend November's G20 summit in Johannesburg – where Ramaphosa is supposed to hand over the presidency to him – citing as reason Pretoria's 'very bad policies'. It's these policies, far more than the trade deficit, that lie at the heart of the standoff. Washington's message has been clear for months, relayed repeatedly to our foreign and trade ministries. Initially, discreetly by the DA delegation that visited Washington in March, then publicly by the Afrikaner civic organisations that followed. ALSO READ: National Dialogue will go ahead despite withdrawal of foundations, Ramaphosa says The US wants four concessions: B-BBEE – not scrapping this controversial policy, which the polls tell us most South Africans reject, but amending it to exempt US companies from having to surrender 30% ownership and instead allowing them to contribute in some other way to economic upliftment. Expropriation Act – not repealing the Act but amending it to make legally unambiguous that expropriation without compensation will not occur. Kill the Boer, kill the farmer chant – not banning it, but the ANC unambiguously condemning it, something Ramaphosa has never been able to bring himself to do. Farm attacks – not declaring whites a protected species, but making such attacks a priority crime. These are modest, sensible asks. Yet they've been met with resistance from within an ANC that remains in thrall to revolutionary aspirations. In other words, the ANC would rather see the country ground down than let go of its delusions. It is ready to sacrifice jobs, trade, growth and diplomatic standing to preserve the illusion that it and its communist and trade union partners are still engaged in a revolutionary struggle, rather than face the fact that it and its GNU coalition partners are responsible for a total failure in governance. For the sake of South Africa, as well as in the long-term interests of the ANC, if Ramaphosa is going to compromise, it patently is better to do so with Trump than with the SACP. And for the DA, which has linked its fortunes to the ANC, if it is ever going to stand firm and not compromise by letting the ANC off the hook yet again, now is the moment. NOW READ: 'We almost made a mistake last elections': Floyd Shivambu's Afrika Mayibuye to grab MK party's KZN votes?
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Tripartite Alliance on the Brink as ANC, SACP Tensions Soar
Newly elected secretary general of South African Communist Party (SACP) Chris Hani (left)) and former secretary general Joe Slovo (right) walk together after addressing the media on the third day of the first SACP legal congress inside South Africa in 41 years, in Soweto on December 07, 1991. Tt is too early to say if the SACP's decision to contest elections marks the end of the Tripartite Alliance, says the writer. Image: WALTER DHLADHLA / AFP Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu In December 2024, the South African Communist Party (SACP) announced that henceforth, it will contest elections alone outside of the Tripartite Alliance comprising the ANC, COSATU and the SACP – as well as South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO). This includes the much-anticipated upcoming 2026 Local Government Election (LGE). It was not the first time that the SACP had taken such a decision. But this time it sounds serious, and the ANC has conceded defeat in persuading it. This incident triggers a few questions. Firstly, what has prompted the SACP to take such a firm decision this time? Secondly, does this mark the end of the Tripartite Alliance? Thirdly, what impact will the SACP's decision have on the ANC during elections starting from 2026? Fourthly, could this incident have been avoided? Fifthly, what should the ANC do henceforth? On the first question, the decision by the SACP was not impromptu. For years, the party has complained about the ANC, which it accuses of undermining other Tripartite Alliance partners and has been contemplating this move. This has led to the SACP threatening to contest various elections under its name, not under the ANC's banner. This was the case, for example, under President Zuma's term. However, such a decision was rescinded on various grounds. Because of the SACP's lack of a decisive position on this matter, the ANC did not take the party seriously. It worked on the assumption that the SACP would make this threat but change its mind on the eve of an election. There was no expectation that the SACP would take a firm position, especially because its numbers are less than those of the ANC. What the ANC failed to understand or was oblivious to is that the political dynamics have changed significantly under President Ramaphosa. In 2019, the ANC fell below 60% for the first time, only obtaining 57%. In 2024, the ANC's support further declined to 40.18%. Regarding the second question, it is too early to say if the SACP's decision marks the end of the Tripartite Alliance. The other Alliance partners – COSATU and SANCO seem determined to continue supporting the ANC. The question is for how long? The third question is the most important one. The ANC must be worried about the SACP's decision on the eve of the 2026 LGE and as political parties prepare for the 2029 general election. Given the level of disgruntlement among ANC members and supporters as evidenced in the 2019 general election, 2021 LGE, and the 2024 general election, some traditional ANC supporters could vote for the SACP to punish the ANC. It remains unclear if the ANC is ready for that eventuality – especially because new political parties such as the MKP have seriously humbled the ANC at the polls. The fourth question speaks to a lack of visionary leadership. It is an indictment of the current ANC leadership. The reality is that the SACP's decision could have been avoided. The issues of concern raised by the SACP's Solly Mapaila point to a lack of leadership prowess on the side of the ANC, complacency, political negligence, political arrogance and trust deficit. When the ANC fell below 60% in the 2019 general election and continued to decline in subsequent elections, the ANC was supposed to bring the Tripartite Alliance together and take a collective decision on how to address this evident lack of popularity. In that meeting, the ANC should have drawn lessons from other former liberation movements across Africa, which lost power after having been in office for over three decades. Following the 2019 and 2021 elections, the writing was already on the wall that the ANC would not reach the fifty-plus-one threshold needed to constitute government. At this point, the ANC should have engaged its Alliance partners about the prospects of constituting a coalition government and the form such a coalition would take. Had the ANC done this, it would have been easier to form a coalition government after the 2024 general election with the support of all its Alliance partners. This did not happen. As it became clear during the counting of votes that the ANC was not going to meet the fifty-plus-one requirement, the ANC was in a frantic mode. It was during this time that it engaged the DA about the possibility of forming a grand coalition. When it faced stiff resistance from the Alliance partners, it then opted for the multiparty coalition (referring to it as the GNU). Such a decision did not please the SACP, which complained that there was no proper consultation, thus feeling betrayed by the ANC. So, the current dilemma that the ANC finds itself in could have been avoided. Question five is important in mapping the way forward for the ANC. A few issues should be considered here. Firstly, although ANC SG Fikile Mbalula boldly announced that the ANC's membership has grown to 1.5 million members, the reality is that the ANC's support is constantly declining. Secondly, time is of the essence as the ANC prepares for the 2026 LGE. Thirdly, in 2027, the party will hold its elective congress. What kind of a leader will emerge from that congress to lead the party to the 2029 general election? Will that individual enjoy the same support from the business community as Ramaphosa did, which is what saved him even after the notorious Phala Phala saga? These are just some of the questions which demonstrate that the ANC has a mammoth task to save itself. The question becomes: Does it have the right leadership to be equal to the task? Has the party learnt anything from its previous and current challenges? Only time will tell. Therefore, the decision by the SACP to contest next year's elections alone sounds like death knells for both the ANC and the Tripartite Alliance. Even if the Alliance were to survive, the ANC would be further weakened. Should Alliance supporters vote for the SACP, the ANC will feel the pinch! * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Thabo Mbeki gives reasons why his foundation withdrew from the National Dialogue
The withdrawal of Mbeki's foundation and others underscores significant concerns regarding transparency and preparation for the National Dialogue, raising vital questions about leadership and accountability in South Africa's pursuit of a cohesive national vision. Image: Picture: Armand Hough/Independent Former President Thabo Mbeki has revealed critical reasons behind his foundation's withdrawal from the National Dialogue, a government-led initiative aimed at uniting South Africans to tackle pressing national issues. Central to Mbeki's decision is the uncertainty surrounding the R700 million budget allocated for the dialogue. Mbeki's foundation, along with other notable legacy foundations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, and the FW de Klerk Foundation, officially withdrew from the National Dialogue Convention scheduled to commence this Friday. Their withdrawal raises serious questions about the integrity and preparation involved in what is meant to be an inclusive and citizen-driven dialogue. "We feel the organisation of the matter was not entirely honest as to where the funds will be directed," Mbeki stated. "This is due to our belief that core principles meant to underpin the whole National Dialogue have been violated in the rush to host a gathering on August 15." The foundations released a joint statement outlining several issues that contributed to their decision, including a rushed timeline that has turned the convention into a mere performative milestone rather than a meaningful launch of a comprehensive national process. They expressed deep concern over the lack of a confirmed, approved budget allocation, which has hindered any sound preparation. Significant disagreements within the Preparatory Task Team further complicated the situation, particularly regarding governance and the overall direction of the dialogue. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ To ensure that the process retains substance, the foundations have proposed rescheduling the convention to after October 15, 2025, allowing ample time for proper coordination and engagement. "Deadlines cannot override substance," they emphasised. "Dialogue cannot be built on haste." The withdrawal also reflects underlying tensions, particularly concerning the inclusion of controversial Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) Vice-Chancellor and Principal, Prof Tinyiko Maluleke. His leadership has been embroiled in controversy, notably regarding accusations of misappropriating the concept of a promised campus for Sekhukhune youth, which has left many young people without access to higher education opportunities. Despite the legacy foundations stepping back from the initiative, President Cyril Ramaphosa has confirmed that the first national convention will proceed as scheduled. The Presidency has distanced itself from the contentious R700 million budget, asserting that all budgetary processes align with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). It also highlighted that the Inter-Ministerial Committee is actively working to mobilise resources for the dialogue while managing costs. "UNISA has offered to host the first National Convention and provide associated goods and services free of charge," the Presidency stated. "Venues and logistical support are being secured without the R700 million burden." The costs associated with this inaugural convention are reportedly being funded through existing budgets allocated to NEDLAC and the Presidency, which are set to be reimbursed in the Adjustments Budget later this year. IOL
