Civil society calls for decent jobs for the marginalised working class at G20 build-up event
South Africa's controversial National Dialogue must not be dominated by conservative and divisive voices. These are the words of Levy Singh, Youth 20 (Y20) South Africa Sherpa during his address at the first day of the three-day C20 South Africa launch held at The Capital on the Park in Sandton on Sunday.
When South Africa hosts the G20 summit later this year, it will be the first time the gathering takes place on African soil.
The country recently officially assumed leadership of the Y20 — the G20's dedicated platform for youth engagement — at a high-profile event recently held at the historic Rand Club in Johannesburg.
"As civil society, we have to be bold and defend our core quality principles. As the Y20 We are committed to working with all the working groups. We also need to continue to deepen our unity and aligning over the next 23 weeks. South Africa will be handing over the G20 Summit to the US, and there is no certainty that our working groups will be sustained beyond this year under Donald Trump's regime. However, we must continue to be robust and rigorous and put forward our progress agenda."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
10 minutes ago
- Mail & Guardian
Just whose dialogue is it? South Africa's ‘citizen-led' convention fails its own test
Graphic: John McCann/M&G President Cyril Ramaphosa opened the National Dialogue at Unisa this past weekend with the promise that it belongs to 'all South Africans', asserting that 'no voice is too small and no perspective too inconvenient to be heard'. The convention, held under the banner ' Uniting Voices, Shaping the Nation ,' brought together more than 1000 delegates from about 200 organisations. But beneath this image of inclusivity lies a difficult truth: this process is not citizen-led in practice, and its planning, structure and execution reflect a top-down, state-managed initiative that is more performative than participatory. While the idea of a nationwide dialogue is commendable — especially given the deep crises South Africa faces — the launch at Unisa revealed a disconnect between the democratic ideals being invoked and the opaque mechanisms underpinning the process. The From the onset, the process has been coordinated by an inter-ministerial committee and an eminent persons group, none of whom were publicly nominated or confirmed through open civil processes. Even the composition of the steering committee, a supposedly 'broad-based' body mandated to guide the next phases of the dialogue, was not informed by transparent consultations. Instead, it was deliberated during invitation-only sectoral sessions at the end of the first convention. If this was a citizen-led process, what participatory frameworks were employed? What tools were used to ensure representation of South Africa's demographic and geographic diversity? Where are the independent observers or facilitators to verify this dialogue's legitimacy? One cannot call a process people-centred while bypassing the people in its design. Much of the framing mimics the rhetoric of grassroots mobilisation, with the dialogue promising thousands of ward-level conversations and submissions through a Despite a price tag of The dialogue takes place in a fractured political moment. The What many participants and observers have noted — both in If this is truly a moment for a national reset, then the dialogue must demonstrate it is capable of redistributing power, not only opinion. That means embracing independent community facilitation, co-creating metrics for inclusion, publishing detailed minutes of all sessions and allowing citizens — not technocrats — to define what matters. The old frameworks of centralised planning, symbolic inclusion and post-hoc validation cannot fix a democracy that is haemorrhaging trust. This convention should have begun with a presentation on the methodology used to select voices in the room, the feedback loops planned for tracking citizen input and the criteria for inclusion at every level of the process. Instead, we got speeches about shared futures from the same actors who dominated the past. Even the public-facing narrative implies the dialogue will culminate in another 'people's compact', but there is little detail on how it will be validated by the people themselves. If speech without substance is just noise, then consultation without transparency is political theatre. South Africa deserves better. The dialogue can still live up to its potential — but only if it turns away from state-orchestrated mobilisation and toward genuine democratic renewal. Otherwise, the phrase 'citizen-led' becomes just another slogan. And we've heard enough of those. To avoid this, the next phase must reframe how legitimacy is built — from process to participation. Rather than defending the structures already put in place, the government must now invite an independent, community-led audit of the convention's first phase. Facilitators for future sessions should be chosen from grassroots civic organisations with no ties to the state. Each provincial leg of the dialogue must publish weekly updates on whose voices are being included, how inputs are being tracked and what's being left behind. This is the only way to demonstrate that this is not another elite negotiation exercise in disguise, but a sincere attempt to devolve democratic power to the very citizens whose future is at stake. Anything less, and we will have squandered an opportunity under the banner of progress. Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala is a governance scholar and lecturer at the School of Public Management Governance and Public Policy, University of Johannesburg, focusing on public policy, citizen engagement and evaluation.
The Citizen
39 minutes ago
- The Citizen
From Uber's arrival to driver's death: A decade of government failure on taxis
South Africa's transport sector's war is killing the innocent – and the state is watching. On Wednesday night, Mthokozisi Mvelase was shot dead and his vehicle was set alight at Maponya Mall in Soweto. He had been in Johannesburg for two weeks and an Uber driver for just three days when his life was gruesomely ended. The next day, a minibus taxi was set alight in what was clearly the Soweto community's angry response to the killing of the Uber driver. This incident encapsulates South Africa's current social and economic state: youth unemployment, taxi industry lawlessness, mafia tactics in the transport sector, police inertia and the government's lack of urgency in addressing citizens' safety and transport concerns. In the background, President Cyril Ramaphosa's government and former president Thabo Mbeki's foundation were at odds over the National Dialogue that the president insisted was starting on Friday at the University of South Africa in Pretoria. The already fragile national convention did start with the government's side of the invitees turning up. However, the community of Soweto continued protesting in the streets, burning tyres and blockading Chris Hani Baragwanath Road all the way up to the N1. ALSO READ: 'Minister, please step in': Turf war between taxis and e-hailers as mall shuts down and taxi burns The battle between the South African National Taxi Council-affiliated minibus taxis and the e-hailing industry is as old as the e-hailing industry itself in South Africa. The arrival of Uber was met with violent opposition by the now almost-defunct metered-taxi industry. Gruesome deaths and injuries became common occurrences and when the generally feared minibus taxi bodies joined the metered taxi industry, it became a one-sided bullying parade in which the e-hailing drivers were sitting ducks. Throughout the many years of violence since Uber first entered the South African market in 2013, the government has acted as it always has: a disinterested middleman who looked away even when the bully killed their victim. It got so bad that it is alleged that taxi patrol vehicles would stop cars they suspected to be e-hailing cars and ask the driver – a man – to kiss a suspected passenger – a woman – to prove that the car was transporting family and not operating as an e-hailing service. Government intervention remained minimal and ineffective. While former president Jacob Zuma's government responded too slowly in enacting laws to govern the arrival of e-hailing in the transport sector, the ANC gave up on ensuring that the neglected minibus taxi industry was regularised after it came into power. ALSO READ: Santaco denies reports of enforcing limits on private vehicle use [VIDEOS] The industry had been allowed to grow into a huge uncontrolled monstrous law unto itself. The justification was that the government cannot control what they did not build. And because it would require real effort to bring the industry under government control, it was far too easy and convenient to simply look the other way. And that is why South Africa is where it is right now. But the community knows how to make the government stop looking away: burn things down and disrupt the rest of the economy that keeps on going while they suffer in a war which is not of their own creation. When burning tyres block roads, an ambulance fails to get to a dying patient on time, life-saving medication cannot be delivered to clinics, a teacher fails to get to school and workers cannot get to work. A company in Sandton is less productive because it is understaffed. But, worst of all, the poor get poorer. It is about time those who only want to talk South Africa's problems to death gave way to those who want to save Mvelase's life and livelihood. NOW READ: Forget Uber and Bolt, we may soon have a Gauteng e-hailing service
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Cartoon of the day: 19 August 2025
The government has been accused of trying to control the process around the National Dialogue. The National Dialogue has been criticised after the ANC was accused of hijacking what was supposed to be a process led by civil society. Six legacy foundations, as well as the DA and Freedom Front Plus, pulled out of the National Dialogue after complaining that the government was trying to control the process. Before the National Dialogue properly got underway, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, FW de Klerk Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, Oliver & Adelaide Tambo Foundation and Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation all pulled out. President Cyril Ramaphosa, however, brushed off their absence, saying that he has to be 'allowed to be the president'. READ NEXT: National Dialogue has big gaps in it
