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

Daily Maverick

5 hours ago

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