Building a better future: the need for national dialogue in South Africa
President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent attendance at the Nampo Harvest Day. Judging by the volumes of fake news and hate speech and more importantly the painful levels of unemployment, poverty and inequality experienced by most South Africans, the President's call must be supported and expedited.
Image: GCIS
President Cyril Ramaphosa made a call for National Dialogue in his address to Parliament shortly after the 2024 elections. Judging by the volumes of fake news and hate speech and more importantly the painful levels of unemployment, poverty and inequality experienced by most South Africans, the President's call must be supported and expedited.
Despite our daunting challenges as a nation, we should not forget the massive strides we have accomplished since our hard-won democratic breakthrough in 1994. Not only we have repealed the numerous racist laws that did so much damage, but the state today spends more than 61% of the Budget invested in uplifting working-class communities.
Yet with 43.1% overall and 72% youth unemployment rates, and our status as the world's most unequal society, we dare not rest.
The damage done by the decade of state capture and corruption are well known, and whilst we applaud the progress in uprooting this cancer and reintroducing a sense of transparency and accountability across the state, much more needs to be done to end this shameful chapter, in particular sending those politicians, officials and businesspersons who stole billions from the public to prison.
2025 has seen a flurry of fake news on social media aimed at not only undermining South Africa's hard-won democracy and sovereignty but also our constitutionally sanctioned transformation journey.
Whilst some instances of racist incitement must be dealt with by law enforcement, others need to be tackled by the President's call to a National Dialogue and more importantly by a concrete set of actions afterwards.
Judging by the vitriolic of much of our public discourse, we need to pay much greater attention to our entrenched socio-economic challenges fueling this deep sense of alienation across parts of society.
These must be anchored in government's Budget and legislation but also by tangible commitments by the private sector and ordinary citizens.
Much has been said about the 49 South African migrants who departed for the US, we have far greater concerns to worry about, including the brain drain of skilled workers over the past few decades to far wealthier economies across the world.
We must ask collectively, as government, business, labour and society, what is to be done and what are our specific contributions to building that better life for all?
First, we must fix the state to capacitate public services, municipalities and State-Owned Enterprises to provide the services that working class communities and the economy depend upon. This includes expediting the infrastructure investment programme and providing relief for the poor.
This requires a bold and progressive Budget be tabled at Parliament that invests and does not starve the state of the resources it requires to fulfill its constitutional mandates.
The private sector too must play its part. This includes respecting our labour laws, embracing the principles of decent work and paying workers a living wage. Employees at any workplace are its most valuable asset, employers need to treat them as such. Undermining workers' rights is a recipe for labour market instability and undermines productivity.
Employers need to hire South Africans first. We cannot sustain a society when four out of ten South Africans cannot find work, yet thousands of low skilled jobs are available and local youth are not prioritised. This trend across many sectors of the economy is extremely dangerous and has erupted into outbreaks of xenophobic violence in the recent past.
It is time that lip service to support locally produced goods, from clothes to food, from furniture to cars, is translated into concrete procurement by government, businesses and us as ordinary citizens. This is the most powerful way to support local businesses, create badly needed jobs and sustain economic growth.
Localisation must extend to our investment and pension funds. They need to prioritise investments in our mining, manufacturing and agricultural sectors amongst others. It is only when our companies shift their investments to South Africa, that we will be able to unlock the 3% economic growth needed to tackle unemployment.
Employers need to engage with unions in good faith and seek alternatives to retrenchments as required by the Labour Relations Act. We should not be adding to an already dangerously high unemployment rate.
This requires the Unemployment Insurance Fund's Temporary Employee Relief Scheme to be fixed and other public and private financial support for struggling businesses to be accessible to give these companies and their employees a fighting chance.
The Public Employment Programmes as well as internships and artisanships across the private sector need to be drastically ramped up to provide a path towards employment for millions of young people. This includes providing capital, training and market access for aspirant entrepreneurs.
If we are genuinely committed to social cohesion, then workers need to be paid a living wage. Well paid workers are not only motivated but also able to buy the goods that the economy produces. If we are serious about social cohesion, then we need to reduce the obscene wage gap, still so prevalent across the private sector between the highest and lowest paid employees.
These amongst other interventions can provide the foundations for not only a growing but a more inclusive economy and a progressive developmental state. These will lay the foundations for a more equal and just society. Much of the responsibility for these rests with the state and also the private sector.
There are elements that we as ordinary citizens are responsible for as well. Government puts in place our legislative and governance frameworks, but we must help ensure their implementation. We should not be content to outsource the nurturing of the democracy that generations sacrificed so much to secure, to others to nurture and defend.
Similarly, we must not take for granted our vision of a non-racial, non-sexist society. Our actions must constantly speak to this call of the Freedom Charter. This requires all of us to spend more time listening to and addressing the concerns of society, in particular the most vulnerable.
Solly Phetoe is the Cosatu General Secretary.
Solly Phetoe.
Image: File
BUSINESS REPORT
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
5 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Ramaphosa names 31 'eminent people' to champion national dialogue
President Cyril Ramaphosa will be calling a national convention on August 15, which will set the agenda for the national dialogue. Ramaphosa also announced the appointment of an eminent persons group of 31 people, who he said will guide and champion the national dialogue and act as the guarantors of an inclusive, constructive and credible process. In an announcement on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said the national convention will represent the diversity of the South African nation and will be a representative gathering, bringing together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, religious leaders, cultural workers, sports organisations, women, youth and community voices, among others. 'Through their various political, social and other formations, in their workplaces, in places of worship, communities, villages and sites of learning, South Africans will in the months following the national convention be encouraged to be in dialogue to define our nation's path into the future,' Ramaphosa said. The views, concerns and proposals that will emerge will be brought together at a second national convention, planned for the beginning of next year. Ramaphosa said there was broad agreement that given the challenges the country was facing at the moment, the national dialogue should be convened. 'The idea of holding a dialogue is not a new concept in our country. In many ways having dialogues is part of our DNA as a nation. At every important moment in the history of our country, we have come together as a nation to confront our challenges and forge a path into the future in dialogue with one another.'
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
No contracts, no clarity – almost a year of the GNU and still no ministerial scorecards
As the first anniversary of the Government of National Unity draws near, ministerial performance agreements have yet to materialise. South Africa's 10-party coalition turns one this month, but signed ministerial performance agreements – an important accountability tool – are still nowhere in sight. However, the Presidency says the work of government is not hampered by the absence of performance agreements. 'The process is under way and remains between the President and the concerned members of Cabinet. There are enough public accountability measures through Parliament when APPs (annual performance plans) are presented and assessed,' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Daily Maverick this week. In a response to Parliament in August 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa said Cabinet ministers would only sign performance contracts once the 2024-29 Medium-Term Development Plan, which outlines the key priorities for the seventh administration, had been approved. The Medium-Term Development Plan was approved by the Cabinet in February, but ministers' performance agreements still seem some way off. President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed a bloated Cabinet and executive (32 ministers and 44 deputy ministers) to accommodate the parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU). The GNU Statement of Intent outlines the gargantuan government's agenda and strategic priorities. But, as Bhaso Ndzende, an associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Johannesburg, wrote, exactly how each minister is to contribute to the realisation of these priorities is unclear in the absence of performance agreements. Previously, the ministerial performance agreements of the sixth administration were based on the 2019-2024 Medium-Term Strategic Framework, and ran from June 2019 to April 2024. But most of the agreements were signed only in late 2020. In his 2020 State of the Nation Address, Ramaphosa pledged to publish the agreements online, in an attempt at transparency. However, progress on those agreements was never made public. It's unclear whether the President will choose to make the performance agreements of the current administration public. Political analyst Professor Susan Booysen, says it could be a gamble so close to the 2026 local government elections. Booysen, however, said she regards ministerial performance agreements to be 'extremely important'. 'They can be a great accountability tool, not just internally for the ANC – and that would've been in times when it was just the ANC in power – but also now, in times of coalition. It would really help specify what the exact expectations are [and] what the exact permissions,' she said. Booysen said these agreements would define what was expected of each minister and what each minister was allowed to do. This is crucial because there have already been tensions and disagreements between coalition partners over responsibilities, with ministers being accused of overstepping or claiming credit for work started before their time, she said. 'We have seen that kind of acrimonious exchange happening, and a performance agreement would help spell out in exact details what it is that the expectations and requirements are,' she said. DA spokesperson Willie Aucamp told Daily Maverick that 'there [haven't] been any targets that have been set'. 'We believe, from the DA's side, that it is very important to get targets set. You must have measurables to be measured on,' he said. Aucamp said the DA supported making the contracts public, for South Africans to assess the work of the executive. 'Should the President not make [them] public, the ministers from the DA will make their targets public, as well as the achievement thereon,' he said. The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Good and the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) told Daily Maverick they would support the publication of the performance contracts. IFP national spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Transport Mkhuleko Hlengwa described performance contracts as 'important tools to measure performances against the desired and set targets'. 'The IFP ministers and deputy ministers are visibly hard at work with or without the performance agreements because they know the commitments and the agreements they made with the voters,' he said. Good's secretary-general Brett Herron said the party 'fully [supports] meaningful performance agreements for members of the executive' and expected them to be 'concluded soon' given that the Medium-Term Development Plan had been adopted and the Budget had been tabled in Parliament. He said: 'We must remember that the GNU Cabinet was appointed in June 2024 – thus the executive has really been implementing the final few months of the previous term of office's performance plans. The delay in finalising the performance agreements is somewhat explicable in this context, though it is reasonable for the South African public to expect performance agreements to be wrapped up now and ready for signature – now that we have a governing programme and hopefully a Medium Term Budget to implement it.' However, Wouter Wessels, MP and national spokesperson for the FF Plus, said the party believed the finalising of ministerial performance agreements was taking too long. 'We do believe that performance agreements are an important component of accountability. Ministerial performance is, however, not solely dependent on such agreements… The conclusion of these agreements [is] taking much too long. We believe this should be expedited,' he told Daily Maverick. On whether to make them public, Wessels said: 'There is no need to keep such agreements secret.' 'Effective accountability can only take place in the presence of transparency,' he said. DM
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Unemployment and definitions — it's about ending the poverty, stupid
While economists argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. For as long as I can remember, one of the 'facts' that has almost defined so many of our conversations has been that we have the world's highest unemployment rate. It's the kind of point that underpins everything else; it puts political parties under pressure to claim they're trying to create jobs, it is the easiest way to understand how our economy is not working. We get reminders of this at least four times a year when Statistics South Africa releases its Quarterly Labour Force Survey. So many parts of our political commentariat erupt when we are reminded that so many people don't have jobs. For the past five years or so, I've found it really odd that the people who are given the most time to talk are union leaders. These are literally the people who have jobs talking about the people who don't have jobs. And, famously, the ANC and the government often say nothing. In fact, I remember once asking Thulas Nxesi, who was the Minister of Labour and Employment at the time, why he was so silent on the issue. His response, that it was not his job to create jobs, but actually the role of the private sector, seemed to miss the point somewhat. So I was hugely interested to read in BusinessLIVE that the outgoing CEO of Capitec, Gerrie Fourie, reckons we're understanding this in completely the wrong way. He says that we assume that the 32.9% of South Africans of working age who are unemployed are not actually working. Instead, he thinks, they are working. They're just working in the informal sector. As he puts it: 'If you go to the townships, most people have backrooms to rent out; everyone is doing something.' 'Formal unemployment' While economists can (and do … endlessly) argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. Because, as Fourie points out: 'If we really had a 32% unemployment rate, we would have had unrest.' I have to say, I do think that's true. If there were so many people who had literally nothing to do, and did not receive money as income, we would have much more violence than we actually do. And yes, social grants do play a role. But there are many millions of people who do not get a social grant, and have no formal job. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said for some time that our businesses face more regulation than in any other OECD-member country. Now, while regulation per se should not really hamper businesses, I think in South Africa it probably does. Some of the regulations seem unnecessarily onerous, but, more importantly, they open opportunities for corruption. And there is also an almost fatal lack of understanding from the government about the role so many informal businesses play. For example, during the pandemic, informal food markets were closed, along with spaza shops. That had the impact of making food more expensive just at the entirely wrong time. But we also don't really know how big the informal sector is. At least until 2019, our informal food sector – including spaza shops, hawkers, street traders and bakkie traders – employed more people than the formal food sector. That means that for every single person you see working in a supermarket, there is at least one other person in the informal sector. And that's just in food! Sustainable living You can imagine how many other people make a sustainable living from cutting hair or in the beauty industry, or simply washing cars. The people you see outside so many hardware stores hoping and praying they will get some work are making some money too. The problem, if there is one, seems to be that we want to focus on the formal sector. The sector that is regulated, and appears to have too many regulations. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing on simply creating the space for people to do something and be paid money in return. In other words, we should be trying to make people richer to reduce poverty. Of course, I could argue against myself here. Other research has shown that our economy is overly concentrated, basically many sectors are dominated by just a few companies. And getting new companies into those sectors is quite tough. We may not grow our economy without some kind of targeted intervention that results in de-concentration either. Changing a definition doesn't change anything, obviously. But, it does allow us to focus properly on what the real problems are. The real problem is poverty; we need more people to get more money for what they do.
