Guardians or Gatekeepers: The Battle for the Heart and Soul of the National Dialogue
Image: Jairus Mmutle / GCIS
Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
The recent withdrawal of seven prominent South African legacy foundations from the much-publicised National Dialogue has sparked surprise. Their exit highlights not only logistical and financial issues but also deeper concerns about the dialogue's integrity, inclusivity, and moral authority. Yet, I will suggest that we consider six challenges to understand their withdrawal.
The foundations, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, FW de Klerk Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, and Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, argue that the initiative shifted toward government control, undermining its independence and credibility.
The idea of a National Dialogue dates back to the Mbeki era, advocated by the late Essop Pahad, who suggested that established foundations lead it. I critiqued this, questioning the legitimacy of these foundations as true representatives of the broader public.
The legacy foundations criticised rushed planning and lack of financial transparency, warning the dialogue risked becoming superficial. They supported inclusive dialogue but called for a postponement beyond the planned August 15 date. Mbeki stated: 'The rushed timeline, constrained logistics, and limited design mean the proposed convention no longer offers a meaningful platform.'
An insider revealed that a foundation complained to Ramaphosa about delayed funding, leading to limited logistical support. Yet, no approved budget and last-minute funds hindered preparation and raised Public Finance Management Act compliance concerns. Ramaphosa later confirmed the budget but offered little transparency on procurement.
Withdrawal threats may signal dissatisfaction while keeping dialogue open, but actual withdrawal breaks trust, forfeiting influence, and questioning legitimacy.
These foundations are often cast as custodians of South Africa's democratic legacy. Their withdrawal highlights fragile moral authority and raises a critical question: do they serve the public interest or their institutional survival? Despite their historical prestige, they represent a narrow, elite constituency disconnected from ordinary South Africans. They act more as custodians of political symbolism than authentic civil society voices, monopolising dialogue under the guise of legacy.
What moral framework justified endorsing a Ramaphosa-led initiative? Did they assume Mbeki's association guaranteed control over themes, processes, and budgets? This suggests either a grave misjudgment or a prioritisation of institutional preservation over genuine national needs.
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 ✕
Six Challenges with the Legacy Foundations' Behaviour and Attitude
1. Appropriation of Civil Society
Legacy foundations, sustained by elite networks and political legacies, claim to represent civil society yet exclude the grassroots organisations, unions, faith groups, and advocacy bodies that truly comprise it. This false equivalence narrows dialogue, silences diverse voices, and entrenches elite control over narratives.
Civil society is inherently pluralistic, operating independently of state or elite interests to serve the public good. By positioning themselves as proxies, these foundations concentrate the national conversation within an exclusive circle, projecting the image of speaking for the masses while reflecting elite interests. What should be an open, citizen-led process becomes a managed exercise legitimising elite consensus, distorting public debate, and implying that an authentic public voice must pass through privileged channels.
2. Mbeki as Central Character
Thabo Mbeki links the National Dialogue to his political legacy, wielding significant influence over its direction, especially amid President Ramaphosa's vulnerability. This positioning, while reinforcing his relevance, risks overshadowing inclusive dialogue and reflects a narrower view of 'civil society' that prioritises elite interests.
Mbeki's continued involvement extends his political influence years after leaving office, suggesting both a desire to shape the national historical narrative and to reassert relevance. Yet this outsized role threatens to eclipse the diverse voices essential for genuine, transformative national healing.
3. Contest for Resources
Another pivotal issue concerns budget and financial control. Initially, the legacy foundations proposed a budget of R853 million, which President Ramaphosa later reduced to R452 million. This budget assumed that the foundations would also participate in fundraising, raising significant questions around accountability and transparency in managing these funds.
Given the foundations' elite connections and their distance from grassroots constituencies, concerns arise about potential conflicts of interest and a lack of proper oversight. Critical questions remain unanswered: Who exactly finances the dialogue? Will the identities of funders be publicly disclosed or kept confidential? What expectations do these contributors have for influence or returns? Without transparent frameworks ensuring public scrutiny and equitable resource allocation, accountability becomes uncertain.
Legacy foundations frequently act more as custodians of political legacy brands than as vehicles of civic empowerment. They leverage symbolic capital to maintain influence over resources and narratives.
4. Erosion of Relevance and Generational Disconnect
Anchored in 1990s transition-era symbolism, these foundations struggle to resonate with younger generations focused on inequality, unemployment, and corruption. Withdrawal may be as much about avoiding association with a discredited process as it is about procedural concerns.
Their absence in the discourse on land ownership, yet their claim to speak for the disenfranchised, further reveals dissonance. Their rhetoric, steeped in liberation-era iconography, increasingly fails to connect with younger generations who confront contemporary challenges rather than apartheid's dismantling.
This disconnect fosters what can be described as a generational legitimacy decay, whereby the symbolic authority these foundations once commanded, derived largely from historic struggles and lived experience, diminishes as the lived realities and priorities of newer cohorts diverge sharply.
5. Entitlement and Paternalism
These institutions imply that without their guidance, the masses cannot shape the future. Such paternalism denies the poor's intellectual autonomy and silences authentic grassroots voices under the guise of stewardship.
This stance diminishes ordinary citizens' agency, casting them as passive recipients rather than active agents of change. Their withdrawal sends a clear message: the dialogue cannot succeed without their involvement. Their relevance depends on sustaining the myth that the future must follow the blueprint of the past.
In effect, these institutions claim a mandate to speak on behalf of communities they presume incapable of articulating their own experiences and aspirations, thereby silencing authentic voices and perpetuating structural disempowerment under the guise of benevolent stewardship.
6. Aristocratic Claims and Elite Dominance
Drawing on Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony, these foundations operate as a political aristocracy, guarding ideological dominance and symbolic capital. Their withdrawal helps preserve elite status while sidelining ordinary South Africans.
By portraying themselves as custodians of South Africa's liberation legacy, they cultivate a form of symbolic nobility, distancing themselves from the broader populace. This echoes Pierre Bourdieu's notion of symbolic capital, where prestige and historical legacy confer power, and Max Weber's concept of traditional authority, wherein legitimacy derives from established status rather than democratic mandate.
Their role can be described as a 'political aristocracy,' where a minority claims exclusive influence, marginalising the majority while advocating the mandate to speak on behalf of the masses.
Reclaiming Dialogue Through Grassroots Empowerment
To overcome these challenges, South Africa needs dialogue models that centre historically marginalised voices. True engagement requires decentralised, community-based forums free from elite mediation. Citizen assemblies, deliberative polling, and consultative councils can link local voices to national policy-making.
Such a shift demands political will to cede control and dismantle the monopoly of legacy foundations over national narratives. Only then can South Africa forge an authentic consensus, rebuild trust, and foster a democracy reflecting the aspirations of all its people.
The legacy foundations' withdrawal reveals entrenched elitism, self-preservation, and a disconnect from grassroots realities. For South Africa to move beyond symbolic gestures, it must embrace participatory, justice-centred dialogue—one led by its people, not political relics or their branded institutions.
* 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
What role, if any, is South Africa playing in Ukraine peace efforts?
President Cyril Ramaphosa has been in direct telephonic contact with all the main players, but it is unclear just how significant a role South Africa can, or will play. Before the big Ukraine war peace summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday, 15 August 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa had phone calls last week with the three key players, Putin, Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – who is, inexplicably, not invited to the Alaska meeting. Were Ramaphosa's calls an indication that he and South Africa have a role to play in trying to end Russia's brutal war on Ukraine, now in its 42nd month? Or was this merely some sort of diplomatic name-dropping? It's clear from the statement by his office that Ramaphosa and Trump mainly discussed tariffs and other aspects of the fraught South Africa-US relationship. Whether they also talked about Trump's peace efforts in Ukraine is unclear. But peace was, of course, the main focus of Ramaphosa's calls with Putin on Thursday, 7 August and Zelensky on 8 August. The Kremlin statement said Putin had shared with Ramaphosa the main results of his conversation the day before in Moscow with Trump's special envoy on the peace process, Steven Witkoff. Putin also complimented the African Peace Initiative, the delegation of Africans which Ramaphosa led in June 2023, meeting Zelensky in Kyiv and Putin in St Petersburg. Ramaphosa's office later said Putin had asked to brief the President on the peace process and had 'expressed his recognition and appreciation for South Africa's involvement in advancing a peace process between Russia and Ukraine'. Call with Zelensky, cryptic statements A day later, Zelensky posted on X that his call with Ramaphosa had been 'a friendly and candid conversation about how to achieve real peace and stop the killings'. He said Ramaphosa had shared details of his conversation with 'the Russian side' (Putin) and was adamant that 'the path to peace must begin with a ceasefire'. Ramaphosa's office said Zelensky 'expressed his appreciation for South Africa's continued support in finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict'. These statements were rather cryptic. Zelensky and Putin are poles apart on how to end this vicious war, yet both expressed appreciation for Ramaphosa's contributions to peace efforts. So what did Ramaphosa say, what advice, if any, did he give? No one who really knows seems to be saying. Jalel Harchaoui, a political scientist at the Royal United Services Institute, said he believed 'Ramaphosa couldn't possibly have said anything of relevance' in his phone calls with Zelensky and Putin. And Ramaphosa's conversations with Zelensky and Putin were probably 'just standard fare', underlining his general narrative that he wants a ceasefire. 'And that does not mean over-concern about Ukraine's territorial integrity or the status of the occupied territories,' said Samuel Ramani, lecturer in politics and international relations at Oxford University (and author of the book, Russia in Africa). 'Moreover, South Africa wants to be seen as supportive of a key Trump initiative to help it deal with the US 30% import tariffs. So I think this is largely routine from him. I wouldn't read too much into it,' he said. Peace talks in SA? One source suggested, however, that a future round of the peace talks starting in Alaska could be held in South Africa. Was this discussed in the phone calls? Dzvinka Kachur, co-founder of the Ukrainian Association in South Africa, noted that Ramaphosa had in the past spoken about the importance of Ukraine's territorial integrity, and so she hoped that he underscored this in his call with Putin. It should also be noted that Zelensky made about 30 calls to international leaders last week to underscore his point that no Ukraine peace negotiations were possible without Ukraine in the room, and that a ceasefire should be unconditional, rather than conditioned on territorial concessions, as the US had initially suggested. And it is understood that Putin also initiated the call to Ramaphosa. Nevertheless Ramaphosa's phone conversations – and there have been others, as well as Zelensky's visit to Pretoria in April and Ramaphosa's in-person meeting with Putin at the BRICS+ summit in Kazan in October 2024 – do prompt the wider question of whether Ramaphosa and South Africa are playing any kind of real role in the Ukraine peace process, and if so what is the contribution, and what should it be? Kachur noted that South Africa was playing a concrete role in the attempts to return some of the about 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia after its invasion of Ukraine and deported to Russia. When Zelensky met Ramaphosa in Pretoria, he gave him a list of 400 abducted children who South Africa promised to try to return – but with no success and no visible progress so far. African Peace Initiative But Kachur believes there is much South Africa and Ramaphosa could still do for Africa and otherwise. The 2023 African Peace Initiative remained important, not only because of those direct impacts which Ramani mentioned – such as African food insecurity caused by Russia's blockade of Ukraine's grain exports. It also remained important because the Ukraine war also had wider, deeper and longer impacts on principles important to Africa, such as restitution for war damages, accountability for aggression, reframing borders, and the future of the UN system. She also noted that Russia's questionable presence in the Central African Republic, Mali and Niger through the Wagner private security company and its successor, the Africa Corps, had direct negative outcomes for the human rights, safety and security of the continent. 'The illegal, undocumented export of raw materials from these countries also provides Russia with the funding to continue the aggression. This is not bringing any benefits to the continent, but creates more trauma, undocumented weapons and suffering.' And she believes that given its history and role as a champion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, South Africa could and should be doing more to ensure nuclear safety – which has been jeopardised by Russia's military capture of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Perhaps Ramaphosa was conveying messages in his phone calls with Zelensky and Putin, said Steven Gruzd, head of the Africa-Russia project at the South African Institute of International Affairs in Johannesburg. 'But I don't think South Africa is playing any major role in peacemaking between Ukraine and Russia. 'I don't see much room and evidence of us being a major peacemaker. 'The African Peace Initiative didn't really go very far. And there was not much follow-up. I don't think the money or the infrastructure has been put behind it to really make it a serious effort.' Gruzd added though that South Africa had also 'taken measures to appear less one-sided (i.e. pro-Russian) in this conflict, the biggest being Zelensky's visit to SA in April'. He thought that South Africa could play a bigger role in the Ukraine peace effort but that would require US support, which could in turn improve its poor relations with Washington. And he noted that South Africa has attended most of Zelensky's international peace formula meetings (which began in 2023) and is working on two points of the formula – returning kidnapped Ukrainian children and exchanging prisoners of war. Denys Reva, researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said those meetings still continued at a lower level (mainly, it seems, on the return of the abducted children). And although the African Peace Initiative did not seem to still exist as a formal grouping, South Africa had been engaging in different peace processes, promoting the values of the African peace plan, including advancing African interests and values. For example, at the UN in New York in September 2024, South Africa joined the 'Friends for Peace' group backing the China-Brazil peace plan (which Zelensky strongly opposes because he believes it serves Moscow's interests mainly because it does not demand the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, as his plan does). Read more: War in Ukraine 'Realistically, no single initiative has yet succeeded in bringing peace,' Reva says. 'Pretoria seems to have shifted its emphasis towards humanitarian concerns, rather than positioning itself as a primary broker of a peace settlement.' He added that 'SA's readiness to mediate the return of the children is an important humanitarian contribution amid stalled negotiations elsewhere. I think Pretoria has been fairly consistent in this regard, and I think that both Kyiv and Moscow probably welcome South African efforts.' And he said both Kyiv and Moscow also see South Africa as crucial in improving their relations with Africa. Ramani said: 'I'm not hearing too much about South Africa being an influential interlocutor.' He added that other countries of the Global South were playing a greater peace role, citing the United Arab Emirates, which he said had hoped to host Friday's summit between Trump and Putin. However, he also added that South Africa was probably doing its best to ensure that the voice of Africa was heard in the Ukraine peace process, and that this was important because the war had significant implications for food security, supply chains and many other things that impacted Africa's socioeconomic development so profoundly. DM
The South African
3 hours ago
- The South African
I want a three-way with Putin and Zelensky, says Trump on pending meeting
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he was planning a second meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin soon after Friday's Alaska summit – this time with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky included. Trump is due to sit down with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, the first meeting between the Russian leader and a sitting US president since 2021. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' he told reporters. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between president Putin and president Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' The high-stakes talks come with Trump seeking to broker an end to Russia's nearly three-and-a-half year war in Ukraine, and Zelensky and his European allies have urged the Republican to push for a ceasefire. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Zelensky has not been invited to the Anchorage meeting Friday, have heightened fears that Trump and Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. Trump said Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to end the war after Friday's meeting, without elaborating. The US leader promised dozens of times during his 2024 election campaign to end the war on his first day in office but has made scant progress towards brokering a peace deal. He threatened 'secondary sanctions' on Russia's trading partners over its invasion of Ukraine but his deadline for action came and went last week with no action announced. Trump told reporters he'd had a 'very good call' with European leaders including Zelensky as he took questions from reporters at an arts event at Washington's Kennedy Center. 'I would rate it at 10. You know – very, very friendly,' he 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. © Agence France-Presse
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa calls for water to be at the fore of infrastructure investment
CAPE TOWN - President Cyril Ramaphosa said that water should not be relegated to the background and should be at the forefront when it comes to infrastructure investment. He said that the provision of water should be placed at the highest level of the political agenda on the continent and has called on investors to put money in developing water infrastructure. Ramaphosa delivered the keynote address at the opening of the African Union-AIP Water Investment Summit in Cape Town on Wednesday. The president said that one of the summit's aims is to bring Africa and international partners together and has called on investors to heed the call to invest in water. Ramaphosa said that water investment must no longer be an afterthought when countries come together to discuss issues like climate and finance. "Quite often, when investments take place, water is always relegated to the back. We are now bringing water, an essential process that sustains our lives, to the fore to make sure that water is clearly put on the investment agenda." Ramaphosa said the launch of the global outlook council on water investments would see the Africa water investment programme scaled up into a global water investment platform. Ramaphosa also called on governments and investors to build a world where water was recognised as a human right.
