National Dialogue must be place for ‘women to raise their voices', Ramaphosa says
Now that the National Convention of the National Dialogue is going ahead on 15 August, despite divisions and the withdrawal of several legacy foundations, President Cyril Ramaphosa says the National Dialogue must be a place for 'women to raise their voices.'
The first National Convention will bring together 200 organisations from 33 different sectors and kickstart the National Dialogue process.
Women's struggles
It will take the form of public dialogues in localities and within various sectors across the country.
Writing in his weekly newsletter on Monday, Ramaphosa said given the history of women's struggles in South Africa, women will once again come to the fore and participate actively National Dialogue process.
'Women make up more than half of our country's population. Women are affected by every political, social and economic issue in the country. Likewise, every crisis, whether it is unemployment, crime or climate change, affects women equally and, in some instances, more than men.
'Recognising that the lives of women are bound up with the future of the nation as a whole, we are counting on women's groups and organisations to mobilise around the National Dialogue process,' Ramaphosa said.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa warns SA must adapt fast as Trump tariffs loom
Equal representation
Ramaphosa added that the government is working in partnership with the various stakeholders to ensure women are equally represented across the structures supporting and guiding the process.
'If we are to remain true to our objective of giving all sectors of society a voice as we build the South Africa we want, we have to ensure that all women are represented. This means a concerted effort to mobilise young and old, urban and rural dwellers, women from different ethnic and linguistic communities, women with disabilities, and LGBTQI+ people.'
The president said the reality is that women's struggles are not all the same and 'we should not assume they are.'
'From the protests against the pass laws, to the so-called beer-hall protests of 1959, to the rent boycotts of the 1980s, to the contemporary protest movements against gender-based violence, South African women have a proud history of standing up and being counted.'
Women participation
Ramaphosa has called on all sectors of society to come together to ensure the full participation of all women in the National Dialogue.
'This would be the most fitting and powerful tribute to the legacy of the pioneers of 1956,' Ramaphosa said.
On 9 August each year, the country celebrates Women's Day, commemorating the 1956 Women's March on the Union Buildings.
The march was a political protest against the apartheid-era pass laws, but it was also a powerful assertion of women's agency.
ALSO READ: Mr President, delay National Dialogue
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 minutes ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
5 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
In its current, elitist shape, the National Dialogue substitutes form for substance
In theory, a 'national dialogue' sounds necessary — a grand, inclusive conversation designed to chart a course out of sweeping structural crises. But in practice, the current iteration risks becoming a hollow vanity project: a carefully choreographed performance by political elites, masquerading as transformative reckoning, but bereft of transparency, tangible commitment or ownership by the people. This National Dialogue, commissioned by President Cyril Ramaphosa, is emerging less as a path of healing — addressing seemingly insurmountable socioeconomic issues — and more as a varnish meticulously applied to cover over the deep cracks threatening the very foundations of our society. Let us pierce the PR veil: from its inception, this initiative has been far more characterised by gestural symbolism than courageous reform. Yes, there are meetings. Yes, there are soundbites about 'inclusivity' and 'national unity'. But beyond the spectacle, clarity is conspicuously absent. Who designs the agenda? Where is the unvarnished documentation of participants' positions, agreements, and, just as critically, disagreements? Accountability? It is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we witness a calibrated, closed-door process that echoes the exclusivity of watershed interventions — like the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) — where certain voices were granted airtime and others, particularly those of the marginalised, were systematically excluded. Among the most sour ironies of this spectacle is how it masks as progress what is really a retreat from accountability. The government drapes itself in the language of 'dialogue', 'listening', and 'consensus-building', yet consistently fails to release clear timelines, deliverables, or even an independent audit mechanism. A feelgood charade Without these, the entire exercise remains unmoored — a feelgood charade. And in this absence, citizens — who yearn for deep structural redress — grow angrier, resentful and even more alienated, sensing that their pain is being ritualistically acknowledged in words alone, not addressed in policy or reform. This is dangerous. As social commentators remind us, when citizens perceive dialogue to be superficial and performative, anger escalates. Real people — workers, students, community activists, township residents, rural communities — do not want symposiums of self-congratulation. They want real solutions: justice, economic equity, quality education, healthcare that doesn't bankrupt families, land reform that returns dignity, and governance that isn't riddled with corruption. But this National Dialogue offers none of that; it substitutes form for substance. Moreover, the lack of full transparency isn't accidental — it is strategic. By controlling the narrative and confining discourse to carefully selected participants — many of whom are politically connected or institutionally entrenched — the architects of this initiative limit dissent, forestall disruption and preserve the status quo. Systemic inequities remain untouched, while elites enjoy the illusion of legitimacy through media optics: a televised statement here, a glowing article there, a congratulatory headline lengthening the shelf life of government spin. But let us not mince words: dressed-up conversations are not leadership. They are weak sedatives, meant to lull the public into believing progress is being made. Yet beneath the vocal harmonies lies a rhythm of inertia. There are no plans, no commitments to constitutional reform, no public financing to remedy inequality, no enforcement instruments tied to dialogue outcomes. The initiative is effectively immobilised, waiting for political whim, subject to partisan will, and devoid of the coercive impetus required to compel structural transformation. The government — and its big business allies — may hope that the spectacle of dialogue will buy time: to slow down protests, silence dissenting voices, and repackage governance as consultative rather than coercive. But if the public discerns that this dialogue is a mirage — a cosmetic application over rotting infrastructure — the backlash won't merely persist. It will intensify. Anger morphs into radical realisation: that institutions meant to protect and empower citizens have become self-serving, out of touch and cowardly. For the National Dialogue to avoid that fate — and regain moral integrity — it must be radically reconfigured. First, full transparency isn't optional; it is non-negotiable. Every stage of the process and how participants were identified must be documented, recorded and made freely accessible — agendas, minutes, draft proposals, dissenting opinions, all. Second, civic representation must not be tokenistic. Grassroots movements, community organisations and historically excluded voices must be central, not ornamental. Measurable commitments Third, there must be measurable commitments: a public road map, with timelines, milestones, responsibility assignments and monitoring mechanisms independent from government interference. And fourth, consequences must follow — if outcomes are not implemented, participating officials must be made to answer to the electorate, including through binding referenda or judicial oversight. In the absence of these fundamental reforms, this National Dialogue will remain not a beacon of hope, but a hollow performance — 'a conversation about how best to paint over the cracks' as critics suggest — without the substance of genuine rebuilding. And here lies the final and grimmest danger: when dialogue is unmoored from implementation while seemingly designed to shield past political administrations from accountability, it amplifies the very crisis it purports to address. It sows cynicism, delegitimises our institutions and green-lights the rise of populist or radical alternatives. In a society facing deep divides, escalating inequality and institutional distrust, that outcome isn't hypothetical — it is all too possible. Of course, a national dialogue is necessary. But it must be meaningful, inclusive, and yield clear, actionable and measurable outcomes. Recycling self-congratulatory platitudes about the Constitutional Assembly that produced our current Constitution — or the largely failed or ineffectual National Development Plan — while ignorant of the zeitgeist does not in itself make for a cogent national dialogue. The public deserves a national dialogue that speaks truth, empowers communities and delivers reform. What we have instead is a curated exercise in surface-level conversations, conducted by the few, witnessed by many, but owned by none. It is time to dismantle the charade — and start conversing with courage, transparency, and real consequence.
Daily Maverick
25 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue's big question of cost shrouded in mystery
How much will the National Dialogue cost? That's the (multi) million-rand question. The National Convention – the preclude to the National Dialogue – is supposed to be the launchpad for months of citizen-led talks about South Africa's future. However, it will be held later this week amid big questions over budget and readiness, and without the buy-in of several foundations that were behind the initial process. Last Friday, legacy foundations including the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation and four others withdrew from the gathering, citing concerns over government control, the continued absence of a confirmed budget, and a rush to stage the National Convention on 15 and 16 August. 'The continued absence of a confirmed, approved budget allocation and a last-minute commitment of initial funds has made sound preparation impossible. This raises real risks of a poorly organised and unaccountable process. 'The push to proceed has created pressure to engage in emergency procurement, which may violate the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA),' the foundations said in a statement on Friday, 8 August. They said the withdrawal of their participation in the Preparatory Task Team (PTT) – which comprised the foundations, NGOs, community groups and representatives from the Presidency – and the first National Convention, did not mean a withdrawal from the National Dialogue project itself. While the Presidency has insisted that costs are being managed and will be largely covered by in-kind contributions, it has not revealed a final budget for the National Dialogue. This is because a budget for the National Dialogue will be finalised only after the National Convention, according to Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya. 'The total budget for the National Dialogue will be developed as the structure and form of the community dialogues are finalised by the Convention, and will depend on in-kind contributions, donations and other resources that can be mobilised,' a statement from Magwenya said on Sunday, 10 August. In response to questions, Magwenya told Daily Maverick: '[The] total budget will be confirmed after the finalisation of the full roll-out process of the Dialogue by the National Convention.' Cost confusion Questions surrounding the total cost of the National Dialogue have been made ever more complicated by a recent report in the Sunday Times, which suggested a clash was taking place behind the scenes between President Cyril Ramaphosa and former president Thabo Mbeki, over arrangements for the National Dialogue. In its report, the Sunday Times cited government insiders who claimed that the foundations had proposed an initial R853-million budget for the National Dialogue, which they then 'begrudgingly' lowered to R700-million, after Ramaphosa refused their request. This allegedly then went down further to a budget of R452-million, the publication reported. The Sunday Times article seems to suggest that the total budget for the National Dialogue has been finalised at R452-million. However, this is untrue, with the Presidency confirming the budget hasn't been finalised. In addition, the foundations dispute the claim that they proposed an R853-million budget. Magwenya didn't respond to questions on the matter. CEO of the Steve Biko Foundation Nkosinathi Biko, who was the chairperson of the PTT, and CEO of the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation Janet Jobson told Daily Maverick that the figure of R853-million reported by the Sunday Times was, in fact, never put forward among the PTT for consideration. 'I have never heard of a figure of R853-million, and I was chair of that PTT,' said Biko. Jobson told Daily Maverick that the PTT had proposed an initial R76-million for a National Dialogue that was first conceptualised as a digital platform. 'That was for quite a different vision of the Dialogue National; largely as a digital platform and through the process of engaging citizens through technology. But, in discussions, it emerged that we felt it necessary for it to be a face-to-face process, and one that reached every corner of the country,' said Jobson. 'After that, we started the budgeting process for a much more extensive initiative,' she said. The PTT workshopped scenarios and approaches for a face-to-face dialogue, and a request was made to cost the roll-out of that model, which came back at R700-million, according to Jobson. However, she said, R700-million was never a figure considered for approval. A figure of about R450-million was also a proposed scenario that was discussed among the PTT, but again it was never approved, according to Jobson. 'Transparent and accountable' In their joint statement, the foundations called for the National Dialogue to be 'transparent and accountable, with no space for corruption or mismanagement of funds in its process.' Chairperson of Parliament's Standing Committee on Appropriations Mmusi Maimane, in a statement on Monday, expressed 'serious concerns' over the funding and implementation of the National Dialogue, saying he would seek clarification on the funding from the National Treasury. 'While the National Dialogue is vital for our democracy, we are deeply troubled by the absence of a concrete funding strategy. There is no dedicated allocation in the national budget and, in an already constrained fiscal environment, we cannot afford to divert resources from other critical priorities,' said Maimane. He said the funding model had to be sustainable and accountable, and could not place an added burden on taxpayers. Maimane said the committee had written to the National Treasury requesting clarity on the budget vote funding the National Dialogue, and an impact assessment report on programmes that might be affected by diverted funds. In Sunday's statement, Magwenya said that all budgetary processes relating to the National Convention were consistent with the PFMA. He said the costs of the convention were being funded from the existing budgets of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), and the Presidency for secretariat support, communications and logistics. 'The provisions in the Appropriation Act and the PFMA will be used to reimburse the Department of Employment and Labour, and Nedlac, in the Adjustments Budget later this year. All procurement and management of public funds will adhere to the PFMA and applicable Treasury regulations. All funds will be accounted for through the normal public finance mechanisms,' said Magwenya. In response to questions from Daily Maverick about the concerns over transparency and accountability, Magwenya said: 'The National Convention could not be pre-empted. Any finalised budget prior to the National Convention would have been speculative. The National Treasury has made provisions for the National Dialogue, which will be finalised after the Convention. In-kind support or sponsorship has been secured for the Convention and more support will be secured for the Dialogue roll-out. 'Any talk of an absence of a funding strategy is devoid of reality and truth. Public expenditures are reported in Parliament and in budgetary processes. I don't understand what informs concerns about transparency,' he said. DM
