From consultation to action: The critical role of the National Dalogue in SA's future
Dialogue cannot be effective without first properly assessing what's wrong and how it can be fixed.
The National Dialogue announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa two weeks ago aims to foster unity in South Africa and find collective solutions to the country's multifaceted challenges. The initiative, which has been under discussion for years, will involve a wide range of societal sectors. It starts with a National Convention on 15 August 2025, which will set the agenda for the broader dialogue.
The aim is to forge a social compact to drive a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP). A National Dialogue Preparatory Task Team has begun mobilising civil society, establishing various working committees. A second National Convention, planned for early 2026, will consolidate proposals from the various engagements into a national vision and implementation programme.
Consultation is essential but insufficient to develop a common understanding of our poor growth trajectory. We may think we know why South Africa is not growing inclusively and rapidly, but an authoritative assessment is needed to determine what is wrong. Collective discussions of these challenges can then shape a plan of action.
South Africans want action, and are well aware of the pressing issues Ramaphosa listed, such as poor social services, high unemployment, widespread crime, corruption, food inflation and economic stagnation. What they do not see is a plan to carry the country forward.
It is naive to think that such a plan will emerge from broad consultation without preparatory work by issue-level experts, which is then made available for public critique. This needn't be a lengthy process.
This logical route was used to develop the current National Development Plan (NDP 2030). Each phase in its drafting allowed room for consultation and engagement, providing an excellent example to emulate.
Key challenges identified
The process started with establishing the National Planning Commission (NPC) in May 2010 by then president Jacob Zuma. Led by Trevor Manuel, the NPC spent the first year developing its impressive Diagnostic Overview, which identified key challenges. The current National Dialogue process should start with a similar analysis.
The subsequent development of NDP 2030 involved wide-ranging consultations, with the overarching goals of eliminating poverty and reducing inequality by 2030.
A first draft for comment was released in 2011, and the Cabinet adopted the final plan in August 2012. But because the purpose of the exercise was primarily to ensure a political offramp for Manual — a political challenger and irritant to Zuma — subsequent attention was limited, and the plan was essentially shelved.
The National Dialogue should develop a follow-on NDP to 2043 or 2053, aligning with the third and fourth 10-year implementation plans of the African Union's (AU) Agenda 2063. South Africa has rhetorically supported Agenda 2063 and hosts the AU Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa's Development secretariat, which oversees Agenda 2063.
It would send an important message to other African countries if South Africa aligns its follow-on NDP with Agenda 2063's successive 10-year action plans, as other African states are now doing. The Institute for Security Studies work on long-term futures across Africa uses 2043. Our experience is that a long horizon (e.g. to 2050 and beyond) is easily ignored by governments fixated on electoral cycles.
Politics will inevitably encroach on the process. By March 2026, when the dialogue is set to conclude with the adoption of a programme of action, Ramaphosa will have little more than a year left of his presidency. The African National Congress (ANC) selects a new leader in December 2027, with Deputy President Paul Mashatile the most likely contender to lead the party into the 2029 general elections.
ANC's downward trajectory
Irrespective of its choice of president, these polls will probably see the ANC continue on its downward trajectory, emerging at best as the largest party in a coalition government. Recent polling even suggests the ANC will be ousted to the opposition benches.
It is important to ensure that any plan emanating from the National Dialogue survives beyond 2029. Practically, that means the Eminent Persons Group (the more than 30 people appointed to guide the dialogue) and the Steering Committee must be isolated from politics and serve as the incoming planning commission. Alternatively, the group should be endorsed by the parties comprising the current Government of National Unity, given their commitment to shared governance.
The location, mandate and composition of the dialogue's Task Team and Steering Committee are therefore vital. At first glance, locating the day-to-day operations of the secretariat in the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) appears attractive. Nedlac provides a platform for dialogue between the government, business, labour and community organisations to address economic, labour and development issues.
But the council has not engendered much confidence, and a forum for dialogue is not an appropriate place for national planning, monitoring and vision. The logical location remains within the Presidency, given the importance of proximity to power when translating good intent into impact.
Developing the follow-on plan
The current 27 National Planning Commission commissioners' terms end in 2026. It makes sense — since they have already been appointed and announced — to formally align the dialogue's Eminent Persons Group with the commission, allowing them to assume responsibility for developing the follow-on plan, serving as commissioners.
Finally, South Africa is cash-strapped. When he tabled the 2025/26 national Budget, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana included the dialogue as one of six unfunded spending priorities. The preparatory committee has apparently mentioned R700-million to finance the process — enraging many South Africans.
It is a stretch to argue that such a costly dialogue is more important than the other unfunded items Godongwana listed — all of which are pressing and would make a practical difference to growth. These include the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa's rolling stock fleet renewal, replacing the gap left by the United States' withdrawal of Pepfar (Aids relief) funds, and funding for the Chief Justice and Statistics SA.
It appears that the Task Team, comprising more than 50 organisations representing foundations, non-governmental organisations, community-based groups and the Presidency, has yet to present a budget to the Treasury.
The National Dialogue is crucial to confronting South Africa's deep-seated problems and fostering a unified approach to building a better future. But it must be grounded with appropriate analysis and consultation, driven from the Presidency, reviewed regularly and must assume a time horizon aligned with Agenda 2063. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
National Dialogue: A R700 Million Smokescreen for Political Survival?
In a country increasingly characterised by the symptoms of a failing state, democratic erosion, economic dysfunction, and deepening public disillusionment, President Cyril Ramaphosa's renewed call for a National Dialogue demands urgent and critical scrutiny, says the writer. Image: IOL / Ron AI Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The notion of a National Dialogue is not new in South Africa's post-apartheid political discourse. It has featured under successive administrations, particularly during the Mbeki and Zuma eras. What distinguishes this moment is that Ramaphosa has formally articulated the dialogue as a key initiative of the 7th Administration. His announcement on 10 June 2025 framed the dialogue as a renewed commitment to inclusive engagement that would contribute to Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan. The dialogue is pitched as a phased and participatory process, beginning with local consultations and culminating in two national conventions. Its coordination includes an Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Deputy President, a Steering Committee of sectoral leaders, and a Secretariat based at NEDLAC. Yet the structure, while appearing inclusive, masks top-down control and leaves open questions of oversight, transparency, and independence. In a country increasingly characterised by the symptoms of a failing state, democratic erosion, economic dysfunction, and deepening public disillusionment, President Cyril Ramaphosa's renewed call for a National Dialogue demands urgent and critical scrutiny. Marketed as a nation-building initiative rooted in inclusivity and moral renewal, this dialogue, backed by an anticipated and staggering R700 million budget, emerges not as a bold new chapter in South Africa's democratic project, but rather as a strategic, and arguably self-serving, manoeuvre by a presidency mired in crisis. While dialogue is undeniably a vital tool in healing fractured societies and fostering inclusive democratic participation, its potency is dangerously undermined when it is co-opted as a smokescreen for political self-preservation. When those leading the call for national dialogue are themselves implicated in the very crises they purport to resolve, the process risks devolving into a performance of consultation rather than a pursuit of justice. Dialogue, in such cases, becomes not a space for truth-telling and collective agency, but a carefully choreographed theatre of deflection, where accountability is diluted and systemic rot is masked behind the language of renewal. The true tragedy lies in the erosion of public trust, as citizens grow weary of being summoned to a conversation that merely serves to sanitise the image of leadership while the root causes of disillusionment, corruption, inequality, unaccountability, and unkept promises remain unaddressed. Thus, the problem is not with dialogue itself, but with its manipulation into a tool of political survival rather than societal transformation. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ Far from embodying the spirit of genuine public engagement, the dialogue appears to function as a symbolic performance, carefully choreographed to legitimise the controversial 'Government of National Unity' (GNU), a grand political coalition of convenience, while shielding the President from meaningful accountability. At a time when South Africa is reeling from extraordinarily high unemployment rates, billions in unaccounted-for COVID-19 relief funds, unmet anti-corruption promises despite over R1 billion spent on the State Capture Commission, and the persistent stain of record-breaking inequality, this repackaging of elite consensus under the guise of public consultation serves less as a moment of national renewal and more as a mask for political inertia and stagnation. President Ramaphosa has repeatedly evaded accountability, from the courts' sealing of the funders of his CR17 campaign to his choreographed evasion of prosecution over the Phala Phala scandal, and his murky ties to Glencore, a multinational corporation convicted of corruption. Unfortunately, Ramaphosa remains suspended in a legitimacy crisis, presiding over a nation that no longer trusts its institutions or the moral authority of its leadership. We warrant interrogating the motives, structure and implications of Ramaphosa's National Dialogue, exposing it as a costly exercise in obfuscation, elite preservation, and democratic deferral. The invocation of historical continuity with earlier dialogues like CODESA and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, both often uncritically celebrated, attempts to root the initiative in national tradition. However, such parallels are romanticised and deeply misleading. Past dialogues often resulted in elite pacts that deferred economic transformation and marginalised grassroots voices. Without addressing the exclusions of these earlier processes, the call for continuity becomes performative nostalgia. Ramaphosa's emphasis on national unity comes amid systemic crises: poverty, inequality, crime, corruption, and alarming unemployment. Yet appeals to unity can obscure the state's role in perpetuating these crises. Genuine unity must emerge from structural change, not rhetorical overtures. If the dialogue becomes a mechanism to pacify dissent or dilute public anger, it risks deepening disillusionment rather than healing it. The R700 million allocated to this process is both ethically and economically indefensible. In a country grappling with failing public services, mass unemployment, and chronic inequality, such a sum represents misplaced priorities. It also raises the spectre of procurement abuse and elite enrichment through politically connected consultancies. The dialogue risks being perceived as a procurement bonanza masquerading as a civic renewal. Volunteerism, not financial excess, should underpin participatory democracy. If civil society, faith-based organisations, and community leaders are expected to engage, their participation should stem from moral commitment, not monetary incentives. The budget undermines the ethos of civic mobilisation and reinforces the perception of a state addicted to performative governance. The proposed group of eminent persons, intended to steer the process, raises concerns about legitimacy and representativeness. Too often, such groups are curated to exclude dissenting voices and elevate those aligned with the President. This risks turning the eminent person group into a curated echo chamber rather than a forum for critical engagement. Without accountability mechanisms, it becomes a technocratic buffer shielding the state from scrutiny. The promise of delivering a shared national vision and a social compact is fraught with contradictions. South Africa's political and economic fractures cannot be papered over with aspirational language. Without addressing systemic inequalities and redistributing power, the compact risks becoming an exercise in the lowest-common-denominator consensus that prioritises stability over justice. Claims that the dialogue will inform Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan must be treated with caution. South Africa suffers not from a lack of policy frameworks but from weak enforcement, lack of political will, and institutional incoherence. Without binding mechanisms for implementation and monitoring, the dialogue's outcomes may simply gather dust. Stakeholder buy-in is frequently cited, yet seldom interrogated. Who are these stakeholders, and how are they selected? If civil society is co-opted into legitimising predetermined agendas, or if critical voices are excluded, then buy-in becomes a euphemism for top-down control. The dialogue's legitimacy depends on its ability to disrupt, not entrench, existing power structures. Unity, as presented, appears more as political camouflage than a genuine commitment. The dialogue provides a convenient narrative cover for the 7th Administration's 'Government of National Unity', a grand coalition that serves political elites rather than the public. In doing so, it risks silencing dissent, stabilising elite bargains, and consolidating Ramaphosa's tenuous grip on power to ensure the fate of recalling his predecessors [ Mbeki and Zuma] suffered is avoided. Why now? The timing coincides not with a sudden eruption of national crisis, these crises are long-standing, but with Ramaphosa's need to paper over his direct failure of leadership. The dialogue deflects from the state's failures and attempts to reposition the President as a unifier rather than a figure presiding over institutional decay. Calls to shape a common ethos or build national direction ring hollow in a context of widespread mistrust. Unity without justice is pacification; participation without accountability is tokenism. The risk is that the process becomes another technocratic ritual, managed from above, and disconnected from the needs and aspirations of the people. The proposed National Dialogue, far from being a platform for transformation, emerges as a shield for political stagnation. It reflects a government increasingly reliant on symbolic politics, bureaucratic rituals, and costly consultations to mask the absence of structural reform. Until South Africa's leadership demonstrates genuine accountability, moral courage, and ethical governance, no amount of dialogue—however lavishly funded—can rescue the nation from its democratic malaise. What South Africa needs is not another elite-managed conversation, but a democratic reckoning, a redistribution of power, and a reimagining of governance rooted in justice, equity, and the dignity of all its people. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Daily Maverick
11 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
‘First step to cheaper food' — Steenhuisen axes controversial bread inspection contract
Following President Cyril Ramaphosa's call in the State of the Nation Address to reduce the cost of living, Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen said on Tuesday that he had revoked a controversial bread inspection contract and that red meat costs were next on the agenda. When President Cyril Ramaphosa asked Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen to find ways to bring down the cost of food in South Africa, he and his team looked at where 'friction costs' and 'red tape' drove up prices. 'The contract for inspections by Leaf Services was one of the first things raised with me when I became the minister of agriculture,' Steenhuisen said on Tuesday. 'I spent the first three months of being a minister going out and speaking to stakeholders. I met with organised agriculture and the commodity bodies. I met up and down the value chain with as many people as possible. This was a common theme that came up from … millers, Agbiz [Agricultural Business Chamber], the various commodity organisations and of course the retailers. 'Their whole argument was that they are already required in terms of their product standards to do the testing, and what these assignee services do essentially is to add another layer of bureaucracy. It obviously adds to the cost of food, which ultimately has to be passed on to the consumer.' He said supermarkets, like Shoprite Checkers, that offered R10 meals had bread as one of their staples, but if assignee services had to be added on, it would be impossible for the stores to offer these meals. Unfair 'Their view was that it was unfair towards the lower end of the consumer chain.' Steenhuisen said retailers argued that this was fundamentally unfair as the assignee services (Leaf Services) would just duplicate product testing that the retailers were already doing. 'When they [retailers] get bread in from suppliers, they do their own testing of the quality,' he said. This included weighing the bread. 'They told me that if they sold bread that was below weight, their customers complained.' He said the assignee service contracts did not contain a proper business model of how they would carry out these tests. 'When it came to this particular assignee, Leaf Services, it was almost impossible to determine their value add,' he said. 'On a balance of probabilities and given the fact that the medium-term development plan has spoken about reducing the cost of living, and the President, at the State of the Nation Address, has asked us specifically to look at mechanisms to reduce the cost of food in the country, this was one of the first places to start. 'It is part of a wider process in the Department of Agriculture to look at red tape and friction costs around food costs and the value chain … and to try and remove as many of them as possible,' he said. 'But obviously without compromising consumer safety, which also has to be paramount. 'When Leaf Services originally advertised what they wanted to do, it was met with very strenuous opposition. All raised the same concerns.' He said that based on these objections he had revoked Leaf Services' assignee application. Payment to Leaf Services would have been compulsory, from the grain producers to the millers to the retailers. 'We are looking at other mechanisms as well throughout the regulatory space to cut red tape and reduce friction costs.' Nimble regulatory environment Steenhuisen said creating an agile, nimble regulatory environment that took into account the views of the sector was a key priority he had announced for his ministry, 'a modern, progressive, regulatory agenda that is adaptable to the space'. His decision to revoke Leaf Services' contract was part of delivering on this promise. He said that assignee services were one of the 10 priorities needing the Department of Agriculture's attention as set out by agriculture economists Wandile Sihlobo and Johann Kirsten in their book The Uncomfortable Truth about Agriculture in South Africa. 'Across the chain, it is the right move to make. We will also be looking at other areas where we can reduce the cost of food.' Red meat, he said, was next, and this would be done within eight weeks. He said the contract for Leaf Services had been ongoing for the past three to four years. 'The retailers' big thing was to argue that if you want the price of bread to go up, this was the best way to do it,' he said. Steenhuisen said he had little doubt that Leaf Services would litigate, given the lucrative nature of their contract. 'But I stand ready to defend this decision. The government needs to listen. Where people identify the impediments to growth, you have to listen and take it seriously.' Lack of transparency Dr Tobias Doyer, the CEO of Grain SA, said they and stakeholders from across the grain industry had persistently engaged with the government about the lack of transparency, stakeholder consultation and cost implications associated with Leaf Services' proposed role in grading inspections. 'We commend the minister and the department for the significant progress made towards a regulatory environment that is principled, transparent and accountable,' said Doyer. 'These strides reflect a growing commitment to regulatory stewardship that aligns with global best practices.' He said, 'Formal objections were submitted, legal advice pursued, and a direct appeal was made to the ministry in 2024 to revoke the appointment of Leaf Services.' Experts from Grain SA calculated that if the R4-per-tonne fee proposed by Leaf Services were implemented in 2016 as intended, it would have cost members more than R600-million. 'Seen differently, this revocation represents a R600-million saving for grain producers. Grain SA itself incurred R135,000 in legal costs to appeal the proposed implementation — an investment made in the best interest of our members and the broader industry,' said Doyer. 'The grain industry supports regulation that is coherent, cost-effective, enabling and respectful of the rights and responsibilities of both juristic and private actors across the food value chain. 'We believe that regulations, when properly applied, are not merely a safeguard, but a critical enabler of inclusive economic participation, innovation, and agricultural competitiveness.' Relieved Pick n Pay CEO Sean Summers said that when Leaf Services started their contract it would have raised the price of staples. 'As it is, basic bread is a low- or zero-margin product, given that it is a staple for most South Africans, especially those under considerable financial strain. 'We are obviously relieved that the minister listened to concerns raised by so many and took the right decision. This would have been an unconscionable waste of money to no benefit.' He said that while Pick n Pay and all others involved fully accepted and supported that bread was legally regulated, it was difficult to understand why the department had originally found it necessary to appoint Leaf Services, which in turn would force the industry to pay for a service that used to be free. Summers said that Leaf Services' appointment was successfully challenged in court in 2021 by the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa, and a new 'equally unreasonable business model' was submitted. He said no research 'at all' had been conducted to establish the level of compliance within the baking industry to see if there was a need to conduct inspections in the first place. 'Bread quality is managed by producers, millers and retailers, and the Department [of Agriculture] in the past provided a free service to control quality. The proposed service was not about food safety. It was completely unnecessary,' he said. 'When applying this to Pick n Pay alone, the inspection methodology proposed by Leaf Services, which included three annual inspections at each of our 920 stores across the country, raised significant concerns. 'The sampling process would have required duplicate samples from each batch and size of bread, drawn from the point of sale. Given that our batch codes are determined by the day's production, this methodology would have substantially increased the operational complexity and cost for our business, and that of all other retailers. 'Since foundation, we have baked and sold billions of loaves of bread across our stores, consistently of high quality. We have never encountered issues with compliance, which underscores our commitment to maintaining these standards voluntarily. 'The introduction of this new inspection regime by Leaf Services would have represented an unnecessary cost burden that could be better allocated to further enhancing the value and affordability we provide to our consumers. 'Had the minister not revoked this contract, the cost to Pick n Pay alone would have been in the region of R10-million a year, excluding the additional costs with speciality breads and other types of bread produced in our in-store bakeries. With Boxer, it would have been about R15-million for a service that was free in the past.' Responding to a request for comment from Daily Maverick, Leaf Services said: 'Leaf Services is aware of the notice published by the Department of Agriculture in the Government Gazette on 13 June 2025. 'Considering this development, we are currently evaluating our options. We consider it premature to comment further at this stage, but we will communicate our position in due course.' DM
Daily Maverick
16 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
From consultation to action: The critical role of the National Dalogue in SA's future
Dialogue cannot be effective without first properly assessing what's wrong and how it can be fixed. The National Dialogue announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa two weeks ago aims to foster unity in South Africa and find collective solutions to the country's multifaceted challenges. The initiative, which has been under discussion for years, will involve a wide range of societal sectors. It starts with a National Convention on 15 August 2025, which will set the agenda for the broader dialogue. The aim is to forge a social compact to drive a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP). A National Dialogue Preparatory Task Team has begun mobilising civil society, establishing various working committees. A second National Convention, planned for early 2026, will consolidate proposals from the various engagements into a national vision and implementation programme. Consultation is essential but insufficient to develop a common understanding of our poor growth trajectory. We may think we know why South Africa is not growing inclusively and rapidly, but an authoritative assessment is needed to determine what is wrong. Collective discussions of these challenges can then shape a plan of action. South Africans want action, and are well aware of the pressing issues Ramaphosa listed, such as poor social services, high unemployment, widespread crime, corruption, food inflation and economic stagnation. What they do not see is a plan to carry the country forward. It is naive to think that such a plan will emerge from broad consultation without preparatory work by issue-level experts, which is then made available for public critique. This needn't be a lengthy process. This logical route was used to develop the current National Development Plan (NDP 2030). Each phase in its drafting allowed room for consultation and engagement, providing an excellent example to emulate. Key challenges identified The process started with establishing the National Planning Commission (NPC) in May 2010 by then president Jacob Zuma. Led by Trevor Manuel, the NPC spent the first year developing its impressive Diagnostic Overview, which identified key challenges. The current National Dialogue process should start with a similar analysis. The subsequent development of NDP 2030 involved wide-ranging consultations, with the overarching goals of eliminating poverty and reducing inequality by 2030. A first draft for comment was released in 2011, and the Cabinet adopted the final plan in August 2012. But because the purpose of the exercise was primarily to ensure a political offramp for Manual — a political challenger and irritant to Zuma — subsequent attention was limited, and the plan was essentially shelved. The National Dialogue should develop a follow-on NDP to 2043 or 2053, aligning with the third and fourth 10-year implementation plans of the African Union's (AU) Agenda 2063. South Africa has rhetorically supported Agenda 2063 and hosts the AU Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa's Development secretariat, which oversees Agenda 2063. It would send an important message to other African countries if South Africa aligns its follow-on NDP with Agenda 2063's successive 10-year action plans, as other African states are now doing. The Institute for Security Studies work on long-term futures across Africa uses 2043. Our experience is that a long horizon (e.g. to 2050 and beyond) is easily ignored by governments fixated on electoral cycles. Politics will inevitably encroach on the process. By March 2026, when the dialogue is set to conclude with the adoption of a programme of action, Ramaphosa will have little more than a year left of his presidency. The African National Congress (ANC) selects a new leader in December 2027, with Deputy President Paul Mashatile the most likely contender to lead the party into the 2029 general elections. ANC's downward trajectory Irrespective of its choice of president, these polls will probably see the ANC continue on its downward trajectory, emerging at best as the largest party in a coalition government. Recent polling even suggests the ANC will be ousted to the opposition benches. It is important to ensure that any plan emanating from the National Dialogue survives beyond 2029. Practically, that means the Eminent Persons Group (the more than 30 people appointed to guide the dialogue) and the Steering Committee must be isolated from politics and serve as the incoming planning commission. Alternatively, the group should be endorsed by the parties comprising the current Government of National Unity, given their commitment to shared governance. The location, mandate and composition of the dialogue's Task Team and Steering Committee are therefore vital. At first glance, locating the day-to-day operations of the secretariat in the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) appears attractive. Nedlac provides a platform for dialogue between the government, business, labour and community organisations to address economic, labour and development issues. But the council has not engendered much confidence, and a forum for dialogue is not an appropriate place for national planning, monitoring and vision. The logical location remains within the Presidency, given the importance of proximity to power when translating good intent into impact. Developing the follow-on plan The current 27 National Planning Commission commissioners' terms end in 2026. It makes sense — since they have already been appointed and announced — to formally align the dialogue's Eminent Persons Group with the commission, allowing them to assume responsibility for developing the follow-on plan, serving as commissioners. Finally, South Africa is cash-strapped. When he tabled the 2025/26 national Budget, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana included the dialogue as one of six unfunded spending priorities. The preparatory committee has apparently mentioned R700-million to finance the process — enraging many South Africans. It is a stretch to argue that such a costly dialogue is more important than the other unfunded items Godongwana listed — all of which are pressing and would make a practical difference to growth. These include the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa's rolling stock fleet renewal, replacing the gap left by the United States' withdrawal of Pepfar (Aids relief) funds, and funding for the Chief Justice and Statistics SA. It appears that the Task Team, comprising more than 50 organisations representing foundations, non-governmental organisations, community-based groups and the Presidency, has yet to present a budget to the Treasury. The National Dialogue is crucial to confronting South Africa's deep-seated problems and fostering a unified approach to building a better future. But it must be grounded with appropriate analysis and consultation, driven from the Presidency, reviewed regularly and must assume a time horizon aligned with Agenda 2063. DM
