President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is out of touch with African grassroots

Daily Maverick

08-07-2025

President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue, intended to forge consensus around a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP), is yet another reminder of how disconnected our leadership has become from the realities South Africans face daily.
While our communities grapple with gender-based violence, crime, corruption, inequality and social fragmentation, what we are being offered is not the opportunity to confront these urgent crises head-on, but rather a carefully curated event, far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens.
This disconnect becomes even more glaring when we consider the lessons of the past. Back in 2009, when the original NDP process began, the National Planning Commission, chaired by then Minister Trevor Manuel, was clear about the distinction between lofty ideals and actionable plans.
'Visions are visions. They are broad, frequently general. They are aspirations,' Manuel warned. 'But plans have to be detailed, supported by numbers.'
Ramaphosa's proposed dialogue feels like yet another broad, aspirational exercise disconnected from practical, measurable action.
The missing first step: returning to our roots of authentic dialogue
Growing up in an African community, Ramaphosa would have been shaped by traditions that prioritised meaningful, grassroots engagement. Justice under the tree, gathering around the fire and community problem-solving were never abstract ideals; they were lived, practical realities that anchored decision-making in language, culture and shared understanding.
Our Constitutional Court itself reflects these principles, embodying restorative justice rooted in African traditions.
We saw the same values during the Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1991, where South African leaders, activists, economists, ANC officials, academics and business leaders came together to confront the harsh realities of apartheid and imagine a different future. Importantly, they engaged with humility, urgency and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths – not in corporate boardrooms, but through inclusive dialogue grounded in real experiences.
Somewhere along the way, Ramaphosa seems to have lost sight of these foundational principles.
The fundamental flaw in Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is that it skips the most crucial first step: genuine engagement with the communities most affected by South Africa's challenges.
This is not merely a matter of consultation; it is about ensuring any national conversation is grounded in real data, authentic voices, and the uncomfortable truths that emerge from township streets, rural villages and community halls. Without this foundation, dialogue among elites becomes premature, uninformed and, ultimately, disconnected from the problems it claims to address.
The reality on the ground: excluded frontline voices
In my recent experience of engaging with three police stations on their approach to gender-based violence (GBV), it became clear that the very people tasked with delivering justice are underprepared, unsupported and excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions.
Officers openly expressed frustration at their lack of training and resources, especially when dealing with GBV cases. Some even asked, 'How do we begin to report and deal with GBV cases?' It was deeply concerning to hear officers say that they don't know how to deal with one of the biggest issues the country is facing.
If Ramaphosa spent time listening to those on the front lines – police officers, community workers, survivors – his policies would be shaped by reality, not disconnected visions. But right now, these critical voices are excluded from shaping national solutions.
This concern reflects a broader problem: the people working on the front lines are systematically excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Many operate within broken systems, with little institutional support, resulting in failed justice for survivors and growing public distrust.
These are the voices and experiences that should inform any national dialogue.
Building an informed foundation: the path forward
Before any national dialogue proceeds, we need to start where the real South African story is being lived – around fires, in community halls, on street corners – speaking directly to those affected by these challenges. Language, culture and context matter. Social consensus cannot be built in luxury venues when trust, understanding and practical solutions have yet to be built at the grassroots level.
This means conducting proper research, gathering credible data and creating space for diverse communities across South Africa to share their lived experiences.
We don't need to reinvent solutions – South Africans already know what works: authentic, community-driven engagement, leadership grounded in reality, and a willingness to hear hard truths.
Return to roots
Ramaphosa must return to the spaces where he once witnessed genuine, grassroots dialogue. We need honest, uncomfortable, face-to-face conversations with those carrying the daily weight of South Africa's hardships.
The president would do well to take cues from his own comrades, notably Trevor Manuel, whose original NDP process recognised that vision alone is meaningless without measurable action rooted in lived experience.
Likewise, the lessons of Mont Fleur show that during times of deep division, bold, inclusive conversations driven by ordinary people, not staged events, can help reshape South Africa's future.
The president faces a clear choice: continue with another sanitised, media-friendly gathering that delivers little beyond soundbites, or embrace the messy, uncomfortable, yet potentially transformative work of authentic, community-based engagement.
Until that first critical step is taken, this so-called dialogue remains premature, disconnected and destined to miss the very voices it claims to elevate.
Anything less is performative politics – a detached exercise in optics, wasting state resources that should be directed towards solving the very crises this dialogue claims to address. DM