logo
National dialogue: Only ‘ubuntu' citizen actions, not talk shops, will solve SA's problems

National dialogue: Only ‘ubuntu' citizen actions, not talk shops, will solve SA's problems

Mail & Guardian3 days ago
If we citizens act on the principles of ubuntu (empathetic caring) and batho pele (people first) then we would not need talk shops. Photo: Lisa Skinner
Living in South Africa is like a David versus Goliath encounter. Just think, everyday South Africans battle a depressed economy, stubborn unemployment, corruption, high crime, and there's no respite in sight.
Navigating the complexities of political uncertainty, no growth economy and social decline has crippled us with fear, confusion and fuelled disillusionment. Many citizens either plan to leave, or 'quietly quit', meaning they withdraw into an insular, depressed and unproductive state of mind.
Hence it's understandable why President Cyril Ramaphosa's proposal for a national dialogue has evoked a public outcry. Besides the excessive cost (estimated at R700 million), which is difficult to justify in these depressed economic times, what South Africans are really tired of and cynical about are the endless talk shops and commissions of inquiry with no penalties for those implicated. The nation has had its fair share of these for about 30 years. And despite the expectation and hype that surrounds these events, they have yielded little or no value. What we need now are practical solutions with tangible consequences.
To build the nation we deserve, South Africans need to shift from thinking and talking to doing. We have the most progressive Constitution in the world, but we don't live it. The National Development Plan, despite some ideological disagreements with it, was a well thought out developmental roadmap. Instead, it's stuck in limbo.
As Peter Kingsley, author of Reality (2003) said: 'We have plenty of theories, endless discussions of problems about problems. But the simple fact is that through our minds we have not managed to understand one single thing. And the time for thinking and for reasoning is over now. They have served their purpose. The problem is that we know nothing.'
The findings of the Zondo commission, which investigated corruption by senior politicians, were not acted upon despite many being guilty of malfeasance. Hence it was with dismay, as admitted by Judge Raymond Zondo, to see these same implicated individuals once again appointed to senior public office. There doesn't seem to be political will to act on these and thereby demonstrate the state's tough stance against corruption. We cannot proceed along this futile path of having another talk shop with no constructive outcomes.
Lack of punishment creates a sense of impunity among those implicated. But, more importantly it sends a message that corruption is tolerated. In addition, lack of legal consequences breeds disillusionment in the judiciary.
For too long have South Africans depended on the government to effect change. Yet, building a corrupt-free, prosperous South Africa isn't solely the government's responsibility. Only citizens have the power to do so. Therefore, the answer is no longer in endless discussions. The answer lies in personal agency.
Look at human history. Extraordinary achievements were accomplished by ordinary people with limited resources and little help. Our many township entrepreneurs such as Max Mqadi (Max Lifestyle Village) show that people are not powerless. We have agency to act and bring about positive change. Pulsating in our veins is resilience that few nations in the world can match. Our sports teams and individuals who have excelled are testament to this. That's besides the courage shown by political activists who fearlessly challenged the apartheid state apparatus. More recently, similar courage was displayed when the South African government, knowing full well the backlash this would unleash, took Israel to the International Court of Justice for its crimes in Gaza.
So how do we invoke our personal agency? The answers are in the late Stephen Covey's highly successful book,
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
(1989). Highlighted are important habits such as ''be proactive'' and 'put first things first'. These principles emphasise the importance of prioritising tasks towards a specific goal based on its strategic value. It places the individual at the core of transformation
.
The constant complaints about crime, corruption and poor service delivery have proven futile. The commissions and discussions over many years have yielded nothing. Protests and citizens' cries have fallen on deaf ears. It is only through our own self-reflection and action, what drives us to act the way we do, how we choose to live, relate to each other and how we consume in our daily lives that will provide our salvation. And this salvation lies not in national dialogues, nor in policy papers, or even in the Constitution. This salvation lies in the profound African humanist philosophy of ubuntu (I am because you are).
Ubuntu principles that include compassion, solidarity, kindness, empathy and respect will solve most of our problems. This is not only between humans and humans, but also between humans and nature. Acting on ubuntu (empathetic caring) and batho pele (people first) principles do not need talk shops, money or technology. It requires the simple act from each of us to be better versions of ourselves.
Practicing Covey's habits with ubuntu will solve most of our problems. Crime, corruption and various forms of violence are perpetrated by us or those we know and whom we support. Many of us are complicit by either remaining silent when a crime is committed or supporting criminal acts such as purchasing illicit goods. This criminality will not stop until we take ownership of our actions and make it stop.
The focus on inner awareness and self-transformation is not new. It was also advocated by Swedish researchers in 2020 when they evaluated the poor global responses to the United Nations sustainable development goals. They then developed the inner development goals, a preliminary set of principles that could create inner awareness and resolve. These principles would constitute an inter-connected values based framework that explored the connection between inner development and outer sustainability.
Finally, when we face the Goliaths of our times — economic, political and social issues — like David, we cannot run from them, nor can we depend on others for assistance. But we can demonstrate inner resolve, be proactive, strategic and act with courage. That will go a long way to solving South Africa's enduring problems.
Rudi Kimmie (PhD) is an independent educational and organisation development consultant. He writes in his personal capacity.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity
The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

Daily Maverick

timean hour ago

  • Daily Maverick

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

The National Dialogue is dead, long live a national dialogue, or something to that effect… where or how to start such a dialogue, the lower-case one, is the next big task. We know that we have to talk, but we can't seem to agree on what to talk about, or whom to include in such talks. It's all rather bewildering. As mentioned previously, opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's initiative is, 'in one sense, a good thing', because it meant that people were engaging with the proposal, and that 'a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary'. In among it all lies the way forward, or rather 'a way forward'. For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the Diagnostic Overview of the National Development Plan is a good place to start, with the necessary updates, inclusions and adaptations. Opposition to Ramaphosa's National Dialogue has moved between positions of outright contempt, to self-dramatisation, bad faith and inauthenticity. Then again, it really was a stretch to imagine the Democratic Alliance, MK party and the EFF supporting anything put forward by Ramaphosa; they were, as they usually are, 'a little too precise, a little too rapid' in their response to the National Dialogue. My colleague Stephen Grootes used the term performative, which is a useful way of describing their responses. These political groups are, at least, consistent and have always presented themselves as indispensable for South Africa's future. Taking them at their word, they are the indispensables. The latest withdrawals will probably mean that the National Dialogue, in its current conception, will not start. The latest group of refuseniks who were meant to participate in preparations toward the National Dialogue have accused the president's initiative of rushing, of 'cutting corners' and of 'centralising power'. The latter is difficult to fathom because it seems to me that opening up a discussion on the country's future is actually about decentralising influence and power and about bringing together political and civil society. Never mind. Leading the most recent resistance, and what may well torpedo the president's initiative, are the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. At first glance, the new resistance projects an image of loyal criticism in the sense that they believe, for sure, that something ought to be done, and that they would like to be part of that something if the necessary changes and improvements are made. Closer scrutiny suggests that there may be a loss of the spirit of compromise with which Mbeki and the late former president FW de Klerk (and Ramaphosa, in particular) were familiar. It's all rather confusing. It's a bit like trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. We have to wait and see what emerges. What I want to discuss is the idea of compromise, and of bringing the opposition into the room. The Mbeki-De Klerk non-compromise A long time ago, during the latter stages of the Codesa negotiations, I had a chat with former president De Klerk about compromise in politics and about its gains and losses. Regardless of what I (many of us) thought at the time, De Klerk believed he had made the greatest compromises, first, with his 'own people' about ending legal apartheid, and then with the ANC in the final months of the negotiations process. The conversation ended on a sobering note. 'You don't have to tell me about making compromises,' De Klerk said. And so I was surprised that the foundations of former presidents Mbeki and De Klerk were among the refuseniks. They would at least understand that Ramaphosa's initiative was somewhat of an acknowledgement that the ANC-led state had lost the power and will to steer South Africa, and that it sought to forge stronger alliances with civil society. All the more surprising was that the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation withdrew. They would represent civil society with a little less political baggage than the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations. Then again, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation probably endorsed the (political) compromises that created the current Government of National Unity. The objective of that compromise, it seemed to me, was by and large to maintain the political and economic status quo that took shape after 1994. To the extent, then, that the envisaged National Dialogue included the main parties that gave us concepts like ' sufficient consensus ' in the early 1990s, one may be forgiven for believing that the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations would, at least, enter into preliminary discussions on the National Dialogue. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Let's try to think harder about negotiations, bargaining and more honest discussions among political and social society. Bringing together political society and social society — all interested parties — into a room to discuss a way forward does not always guarantee optimal outcomes. As the tired idiom has it: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Let's try a more sophisticated example, grounded in reality (turkeys don't actually vote, nè). Imagine a village, somewhere in Central America, that is plagued by crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse. A leader of the village suggests a 'dialogue' about crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse, and invites everyone into a hall to discuss what is wrong and what ought to be done about it. One suggestion is that the local municipality installs high-mast lighting as a way to curb criminal activities at night. Now, among the invited, for the sake of democracy, representation and inclusivity, are criminals who have an interest in darkness. Criminals thrive on operating in the dark. The initiative to install high-mass lighting fails because there is no consensus. The criminal elements on the guest list of civil society vote against high-mast lighting. It is at this point that the local leaders can simply go ahead and authorise installation of the high-mass lighting by some decree or authoritarianism, or on the basis of 'sufficient consensus', or by asking the criminals to vote against their interests. What will it be? What should it be? I just don't know. I return to the befuddlement of a political superposition — trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. Nobody knows what will happen next. I don't know what will happen next. But because I don't know what will happen next, does not mean everyone else does not know what will happen next. Maybe somebody does know what will happen next. I think I mangled a line from the film The Milagro Beanfield War, but it works, kinda. For now, we remain in stasis — what has become South Africa's original position. DM

[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention
[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention

Eyewitness News

time2 hours ago

  • Eyewitness News

[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention

JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered the opening address at the National Dialogue, a platform aimed at fostering inclusive discussions around South Africa's pressing socio-economic and political issues. Ramaphosa acknowledged that 'many things are broken' in the country, setting the tone for a series of conversations meant to address national challenges and develop collaborative solutions. The dialogue brings together leaders from civil society, government, and various sectors to chart a path forward for the nation.

National Dialogue: Everything you need to know
National Dialogue: Everything you need to know

IOL News

time3 hours ago

  • IOL News

National Dialogue: Everything you need to know

It is believed to be a phased, participatory process involving local consultations, sectoral discussions, and provincial gatherings. There is expected to be a second convention in early 2026 where a national programme of action will be adopted. The National Dialogue is a government initiative designed to unite South Africans in addressing the country's most pressing issues. This includes social, economic, and political challenges. Its purpose is to spark discussions at a grassroots level, identify common ground, build a collective vision for progress, and strengthen democratic processes. The National Dialogue is set to kick off despite several withdrawals and controversy. We take a look at the reason for the dialogue, the withdrawals and the controversy: The National Convention is expected to bring together 200 organisations from 33 different sectors. Only 557 people from 28 sectors had confirmed attendance. The first National Convention is scheduled to take place from August 15 to 16, 2025, at UNISA's main campus in Pretoria. Concerns and controversies Budgetary scrutiny: The estimated R700 million price tag has sparked public criticism, especially since the country grapples with service delivery failures and inequality. National Convention spokesperson Rev Zwoitwaho Nevhutalu clarified that the R700 million is a draft figure prepared by the preparatory task team, not a final government allocation. The conceptual funding framework projects 60% of costs from the government (fiscus) and 40% from donors (cash and in-kind contributions from businesses, private sector, civil society, churches, and municipalities). The Presidency confirmed that costs for the first convention are funded from existing NEDLAC and Presidency budgets, with UNISA providing venues and services free of charge. Ramaphosa also stated efforts are underway to reduce the overall cost. Parliament's Standing Committee on Appropriations has raised questions about funding sources and governance, insisting public money must be accounted for and allocated through an act of Parliament. Legitimacy and duplication: The Labour Party of South Africa filed a legal bid to halt the dialogue, saying it's a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature. It questioned the President's power to establish it if it aims to create policy and binding decisions. The Gauteng High Court dismissed this bid, ruling that the President is mandated to promote national unity and the dialogue has a rational link to this goal. "Elite capture" and exclusions: Civil society groups, like Free SA, argue the dialogue is "neither national nor a dialogue" because it excludes key political parties and entire sectors of society, making it appear more like a PR exercise. According to political analyst, Sandile Swana, it's a concern of "elite capture," where a document produced by ruling elites may not reflect the needs of ordinary South Africans. Talk shop vs. action: Critics view the dialogue as another "talk shop" disconnected from real challenges. They argue that South Africa needs delivery and practical solutions to issues like unemployment, poverty, crime, and failing public services, instead of more speeches or reports. Accountability for corruption: Critics, including #NotInMyName, argue that the government lacks the moral imperative to convene the dialogue while widespread reports of corruption and mismanagement of state resources remain unaddressed. There are warnings that unless the dialogue directly addresses issues like the Phala Phala affair, it will lack credibility. President Ramaphosa's Stance President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended the decision to proceed, stating that the National Convention is essential for South Africa's people to take ownership and control of the National Dialogue. He expressed regret over some withdrawals but was encouraged by their stated intention to still play a role. Ramaphosa has also urged women to lead discussions and participate actively in the dialogue, especially as the first convention takes place during Women's Month. He stressed that women, who are significantly affected by national issues, must be equally represented across all structures, including young and old, rural and urban, and those from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and LGBTQI+ communities. IOL

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store