logo
National Dialogue may not be a success

National Dialogue may not be a success

The Star6 days ago
Sifiso Mahlangu | Published 6 hours ago
President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the National Dialogue, which aims to facilitate conversations among diverse South African stakeholders, including government, civil society, and political organisations. However, it has already drawn criticism regarding its high costs.
Image: ANC/X
The much-anticipated National Dialogue, set to kick off with a National Convention at the University of South Africa (Unisa) in Pretoria on 15 and 16 August 2025, is facing mounting challenges, with the withdrawal of several high-profile foundations raising questions about its future success.
The dialogue, which aims to facilitate conversations among diverse South African stakeholders, including government, civil society, and political organisations, has already drawn criticism regarding its high costs.
The reported R700 million price tag for the event has caused concern, despite the Presidency's efforts to manage expenses and reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.
In response to the growing criticism, the Presidency assured the public that the budgetary process for the National Dialogue adhered to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and that efforts had been made to secure services and facilities at no cost.
Unisa, for instance, has offered to host the event for free, providing a range of services such as venues, catering, Wi-Fi, and printing of discussion materials.
Additionally, the government has secured further in-kind donations, including transportation, public viewing screens, and other logistical support, which the Presidency claims will significantly reduce the overall cost of the dialogue.
The National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) and the Presidency will also contribute from their existing budgets to cover communication and logistical expenses. However, despite these efforts, the National Dialogue faces a crisis of participation.
Key players in South Africa's civil society and political landscape have pulled out of the event. Prominent foundations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, have all announced their decision to withdraw.
These organisations have expressed concerns about the lack of adequate financing, the erosion of citizen leadership in the dialogue process, and the shift of control towards the government. According to the foundations, what began as a citizen-led initiative has gradually become dominated by government interests.
They argue that the event, which was originally intended to empower citizens, has lost its focus due to the government's insistence on pushing forward with the convention, despite advice from the organising subcommittee chairs.
The foundations further criticised the lack of a proper platform for meaningful dialogue, as well as the misalignment within the organising committee and the short timelines involved in organising the event.
'In pushing forward for a convention on 15 August at the will of government officials and against the advice of the subcommittee chairs, we believe that a critical moment in which citizens should be leading will be undermined,' the statement from the foundations read.
While the dialogue is expected to draw leaders from various political parties and civil society organisations, the absence of these key foundations casts doubt on the true inclusiveness and effectiveness of the event.
The government remains adamant that the dialogue will proceed as planned, but the growing skepticism surrounding its execution may undermine its credibility and its intended outcomes.As the National Dialogue draws nearer, many are left wondering whether it will live up to its lofty goals or whether it will simply become a talkshop, disconnected from the real concerns of the South African people.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Striking a Balance Between Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Striking a Balance Between Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law

IOL News

timean hour ago

  • IOL News

Striking a Balance Between Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Residents of Atteridgeville, grouped under Concern Tshwane Residents, protesting outside Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital, calling for undocumented foreigners to be barred from receiving healthcare services due to the alleged strain on public resources. Image: Independent Media Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The issue of undocumented migrants in South Africa has caused a stir across various sectors. While some call for their immediate deportation because they deplete the country's resources at the expense of the nationals, others – including some NGOs – plead on their behalf. They even invoke certain clauses of the Freedom Charter and sections of the country's constitution to strengthen their argument on why these undocumented migrants should be allowed to stay in this country. The main question that begs for attention is: where does one draw the line between addressing the challenge of undocumented migrants and upholding human rights? Another question becomes: should the rights of these undocumented migrants supersede those of South African citizens? These are very critical questions. To answer them properly, one must cogently interpret both the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Clause five of the Freedom Charter states that 'all shall be equal before the law.' Clause 6 states that 'all shall enjoy equal human rights.' The reality is that when the Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown, Soweto, on June 26, 1955, it did not envision a South Africa that people from outside the country would populate. In that sense, the 'all' in both clauses did not refer to foreign nationals. Therefore, if these undocumented migrants were to be allowed to live in South Africa, it would be for other reasons, not because of the Freedom Charter. Some cite different sections of the Constitution to make a case for these undocumented migrants, especially Chapter 2 on the Bill of Rights. Sec 25 states that 'everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.' Section 27 states that everyone has the right to basic education. While these sections are relevant to the debate, it is Section 27 that has triggered a serious debate. Sub-section 1(a) states that 'everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive healthcare.' Some South Africans complain that they are unable to access health care services because they compete with undocumented migrants. It was for this reason that members of Operation Dudula were arrested for checking patients' identity documents to ascertain if they were South Africans. Others criticise these undocumented migrants for taking their jobs. Whether this is true or not varies from one case to another. This debate leads us to a broader discussion that we must focus on. In this regard, there are five questions to ruminate about. 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 ✕ Ad loading Firstly, what role has our government played in creating this situation? For example, had they protected the country's borders like other countries do, would this problem have arisen? Secondly, to what extent are the home governments of these undocumented migrants to blame for many of the challenges South Africa is wrestling with? In other words, had these governments ensured political and economic stability in their countries, would these undocumented migrants have come to South Africa? Thirdly, what role do NGOs play in sustaining this challenge? Do they assist the government on how to address the challenge, or do they use the desperation of these undocumented migrants to make themselves relevant and score cheap points? Fourthly, how does the international community contribute to the sustenance of this challenge about undocumented migrants? Do they share their experiences with the South African government, or do they use these migrants for political expediency? Fifthly, what is the way out of this dilemma? In other words, should South Africa simply learn to live with this challenge, or should a solution be found? If the latter is the case, how should the process unfold, and who should be the role-players? On the first question, our government is to blame for the current situation. The country's borders are porous. Corruption has become 'normal'. Some argue that they were in exile in the countries where the undocumented migrants come from. While this statement is factually correct, it is analytically flawed. They lived in camps, were known to the authorities, respected the laws of those countries, and many of them did not compete for jobs with the citizens of their host countries. On the second question, the home governments of these undocumented migrants are to blame. They created economic and political conditions not conducive to their citizens. As such, some had to find their way out to look for greener pastures in South Africa. Regarding the third question, NGOs are not a homogeneous group. Some are doing a good job in filling the gaps where the government has failed. Others advance the interests of foreign governments that want to see South Africa fail. They do so under the guise of helping the needy. They take the side of undocumented migrants to paint the country in a bad light. The fourth question is related to the third one. Some foreign governments are vocal whenever South Africa acts against undocumented migrants. Ironically, they are very tough in their own countries. In that sense, the fate of these undocumented migrants is used to tarnish South Africa's global image while scoring cheap political points. The fifth question is the most important. The South African government should demonstrate leadership. This includes teaching South Africans the correct interpretation of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Where the constitution has loopholes, these should be filled through constitutional amendments.

Malema: National Dialogue is a waste of resources
Malema: National Dialogue is a waste of resources

The South African

timean hour ago

  • The South African

Malema: National Dialogue is a waste of resources

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema has denounced the National Dialogue, calling it a waste of state resources. Malema made the remarks on Saturday during the Siyabonga rally in Seshego, Polokwane, Limpopo, where the party celebrated its by-election victory in July. The EFF won the ward 13 by-election with 57% of the vote, while the African National Congress (ANC) secured 39%. Malema accused the government of ignoring community challenges while wasting millions on the National Dialogue. 'It served no purpose. It only protected the egos of certain people, and it wasted money. NGOs and other participants told organisers to postpone because they were not ready, but they went ahead and embarrassed themselves. We don't support this convention, and we don't support the National Dialogue. We already know what our people demand. Government cannot waste R700 million that it does not have,' Malema said. Malema expressed confidence that the EFF will win more votes in Limpopo during the 2026 local government elections. 'We are ready to win wards in Bela Bela and across Limpopo. We want the EFF present in every township, municipality, and rural area, and we aim to take over government in contested wards,' Malema said. Malema also offered condolences to the widows and children of the Marikana massacre victims on the 13th anniversary of the tragedy at the Lonmin platinum mine in Rustenburg, North West. Police shot and killed 34 miners during a strike for higher wages. 'We send our condolences to the widows of Marikana and the children who lost their fathers. Marikana shaped the EFF into what it is today. The EFF and Marikana will always remain linked. The pain of Marikana remains our pain, because to this day no one has been held accountable,' Malema said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

'When Khamzat was training, he was busy playing politics': Fans react to Dricus' defeat
'When Khamzat was training, he was busy playing politics': Fans react to Dricus' defeat

The South African

time2 hours ago

  • The South African

'When Khamzat was training, he was busy playing politics': Fans react to Dricus' defeat

Khamzat Chimaev obliterates Dricus du Plessis to be crowwned the new UFC middleweight in Chicago on Saturday night. The Russian fighter dominated the match, scoring frequent take-downs and gave the champion no room to manoeuvre. Ultimately Khamzat won the contest after all three judges scored 50-44 in favour of the challenger. Following the defeat to Khamzat, South African UFC fans took to social to react to Dricus's defeat. Some felt the South African put up a brave fight, while others celebrated his loss following his support for US President Donald Trump. Du Plessis congratulated the Russian fighter, admitting that he was beaten fair and squad. 'Big ups to Khamzat, he deserves this 100%. He beat me fair and square… I'll be back, and I'm coming to get my belt back. But for now it's his, and he deserves it.' Sports, Arts and Culture minister Gayton Mckenzie applauded the Pretoria fighter. 'Dricus du Plessis you made us proud as one of the great champions and we know you will be back. You faced a tough wrestler today but you will come back stronger. It was hard to watch but you never gave up, almost had him & you'll always be a legend. Chin up,' the sports minister wrote on X. @HenryCejudo wrote: 'Dricus showed heart but Khamzat Chimaev is on another level right now. He may very well be champion for years to come.' @Zinc1423300 wrote: 'A Trump supporter and part of the genocide grift machine—I'm relieved he lost. May he face a few more humblings on his way to well-deserved obscurity.' @kokififty5 wrote: 'He can go into politics now seems to have a lot to say on that.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 0211. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.

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