Latest news with #ConventionforaDemocraticSouthAfrica
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Politics
- 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.
The Citizen
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
The credibility of the National Dialogue is at stake
Those that walked out must go and sit down away from the public glare and 'talk about talks' until they find common ground. In the run-up to the election that ushered in democracy in 1994, there were quite a number of bilateral talks that took place, not only between representatives of the then-banned ANC and the government at the time, but also between figures like Harry Schwarz of the liberal United Party and Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the leader of the homeland of KwaZulu-Natal. These faith-based talks resulted in what came to be known as the Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith. This was in 1974, about 20 years before democracy. There were also talks between private sector businesspeople and the liberation movements outside of the country and even secret talks between jailed Nelson Mandela and National Intelligence Service leader Neil Barnard. Some of those talks led to absolutely nothing, but others led to the establishment of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. All the talks that preceded that moment were necessary, even the ones that led to nothing. The Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith, for instance, demonstrated that although people can meet to map out the future of a country in which they deem themselves important enough to engage, credibility cannot be declared by the organisers of the talks themselves, but by those they represent and how they carry the aspirations of those they represent. ALSO READ: Mr President, delay National Dialogue The Mahlabatini declaration led to nothing because it lacked credibility. That is the risk that the National Dialogue runs. To start with, President Cyril Ramaphosa and his advisors should acknowledge that it is the ANC government that brought the country to this moment. What is this moment? A time when the country feels directionless, where the initial hope and belief in a prosperous future have all but faded. That admission is not to say that South Africa's problems were all created by the ANC; no, it would simply be an admission that Project South Africa was handed over to the ANC in 1994 with the country trusting and believing that they would steer the project with honesty and integrity, with the sole aim of building a country that all citizens would be proud of, where dignity is restored to every citizen, especially the poorest of the poor. The admission would be: 'We failed and got distracted by, among other things, the lure of personal wealth.' The only way the National Dialogue will work and not be a waste of taxpayers' money is if all the players realise that it is not about them. ALSO READ: Still no confirmation on cost of controversial National Dialogue It is not about Ramaphosa or former president Thabo Mbeki or even their legacies for that matter. It should not be about whether the ANC will get bashed just before an election in 2026, or whether the opposition will feel excluded. It should and must be about whether the South African who lives in a shack in Chris Hani informal settlement, having even given up looking for a job, will have their hope restored. It should be about whether South Africans going about their daily life feel the government has a handle on their own personal safety. They must feel the National Dialogue will fix the police force or will provide a way to stop them and their relatives from getting murdered in broad daylight. How is this going to happen? Those that walked out over the budget and those imposing a budget on the talks need to do what the founders of modern-day South Africa did: go and sit down away from the public glare and 'talk about talks' until they find common ground. ALSO READ: Who is footing the bill for the National Dialogue? Presidency breaks it down
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
Presidency compares upcoming National Dialogue to CODESA
JOHANNESBURG - The Presidency said much like the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) negotiations, which ushered in the country's democratic dispensation, it comes as no surprise that some will opt out of the process. This comes following the withdrawal of at least 6 legacy foundations from the preparatory task team ahead of the first leg of the National Dialogue. On Friday, the first national convention is expected to take place without the legacy foundations that walked away from this part of the dialogue, citing delayed funding and an insufficient preparation period. Presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said it's important for the public to recognise the value attached to the National Dialogue. He said this remains true even if some walk away from the process. ALSO READ: National Dialogue organising team restructured after withdrawal of several foundations - Ramaphosa Magwenya, speaking on 702 earlier, compared the impasse to the one during the 1990s peace talks. "You will recall that when we were heading towards CODESA, there were parties who boycotted those processes and those talks." He said there's no merit to perceptions that the foundations walking away will dilute the dialogue. "We're fairly comfortable that we will be able to proceed and the credibility of the exercise will be maintained throughout." After the first convention on Friday, the National Dialogue will continue with a series of public engagements across the country.
IOL News
18-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Mandela's legacy: SA in dire need of decisive, principled leadership
Then ANC President Nelson Mandela (centre) flanked by Cyril Ramaphosa (left) and Jacob Zuma at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) on December 20,1991 in Johannesburg. Mandela's life remains a formidable example. His leadership was principled, resolute, and intolerant of external dictates, internal inefficiency and ill-discipline, says the writer. Image: AFP Reneva Fourie Today, 18 July, we celebrate Mandela Day. The occasion requires that we reflect on the qualities that defined former President Nelson Mandela and consider how they can be applied to South Africa's current woes. As society faces socio-economic challenges, institutional decay and an increasing culture of individualism, Mandela's legacy of decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the erosion of authority that dominates today's political landscape. No country develops by chance. Effective leadership is crucial for fostering economic resilience and driving progress, particularly in the face of global challenges. China, for instance, emerged as an international economic powerhouse after implementing transformative reforms from the late 1970s. By the end of 2020, the country had successfully achieved its objective of lifting more than 850 million people out of absolute poverty. This metamorphosis was propelled by leaders who understood that effective governance should prioritise the needs of the people and must be supported by integrated, strategic, long-term planning. Nelson Mandela was such a transformational leader. In the ANC Youth League, he agitated for a mass-based movement. He was instrumental in the founding of uMkhonto we Sizwe, the ANC's armed wing. He turned down Botha's offer to be released if he agreed to renounce violence. After he was released from prison in 1990, he convinced the ANC to make difficult compromises during the negotiations to ensure peace and a better future. He did not put up with any nonsense from FW De Klerk, as shown in his famous temper speech. He used his strong leadership skills to help calm a country that was close to civil war after Chris Hani was assassinated. His presidency was marked by a commitment to improving the lives of South Africans. His administration delivered water, electricity, public housing and affordable healthcare on a scale that drew admiration from around the world. He saw governance as a tool to serve the people, especially the poor and marginalised. Mandela was a voice for global justice. He continued to oppose poverty, inequality and conflict with unwavering determination and remained a staunch supporter of liberation movements worldwide. He boldly defended the people of Palestine and defied US threats by hosting leaders like Castro and Gaddafi. His belief in Pan-African unity never faded. Leadership is too often viewed in terms of political control, economic influence, or the visibility of social movements. Yet, at its core, leadership is a responsibility that must be shared. Mandela's legacy did not arise in a vacuum. 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 ✕ He was part of a generation of exceptional and selfless cadres. Before 1990, the activists and leaders of the ANC-led alliance and the broader anti-apartheid movement operated with a coherence and discipline that is increasingly hard to find today. Their commitment was forged in sacrifice. Many faced detention, torture, imprisonment, life on the run, exile and the supreme sacrifice. Their common aim was to build a just and democratic South Africa in honour of their efforts and the lives lost during the liberation struggle. When leadership spoke, it was listened to. Recalling a sitting president for personal ambition was unheard of. And the recent attempts at external interference in domestic matters would never have been welcomed, let alone encouraged. Today, the country needs that same discipline and cohesion. Those who hold power in the state must rise to the occasion. Ministers must be effective and accountable. The President should remove those tainted by scandal. The Minister of Public Administration must act quickly to improve the efficiency of the public sector. The Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs must ensure that municipalities deliver services. National Treasury should stop deferring to international financial institutions and begin asserting national priorities. The security cluster requires a total institutional overhaul to restore public confidence. Parliament must act boldly to oversee the executive and hold it accountable. The judiciary must reaffirm its commitment to impartiality and the pursuit of effective justice. Poor governance is not solely due to corrupt or ineffective public leaders. It also reflects a breakdown in our sense of mutual ownership. A thriving democracy requires participation from those who govern and those who are governed. Although the state bears responsibility, ultimate power resides with the people. It was ordinary citizens, as inspired – among others – by the ANC-led alliance, who made the dream of freedom from apartheid a reality. That same commitment to civic responsibility must now be exercised to ensure that government remains accountable and effective. We must dismiss the notion that leadership is reserved for politicians or elites. Genuine leadership exists within communities, workplaces, homes, and our everyday interactions. This is why Mandela Day and initiatives like the 67 minutes of community service remain so important. These gestures remind us of our shared humanity and collective responsibility, allowing us to connect across divides and channel our discontent into action. But volunteering once a year is not enough. The spirit of Mandela demands sustained civic engagement, critical vigilance, and an unwavering insistence on integrity at every level of government. Effective governance is a partnership. It is not a battleground for self-interest but a space for cooperation and joint leadership. Decisions must reflect the voices and needs of all, not just the few. This will enhance state legitimacy and cultivate a stronger, more resilient society. Mandela's life remains a formidable example. He did not seek power for its own sake. He used it to uplift others. He led by listening, acting, and uniting. His leadership was principled, resolute, and intolerant of external dictates, internal inefficiency and ill-discipline. On this Mandela Day, let us honour his legacy not only with remembrance but with resolve. Let us demand accountability and competence, and a reward principle. Let us insist that those who lead us do so in the service of all. Because in the end, as Mandela himself taught us, what counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is about what difference we have made to the lives of others. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
The South African
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The South African
Firoz Cachalia: From Benoni to Wits, to Acting Police Minister
President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police on Sunday, 13 July. Cachalia is a professor of law at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). However, he is expected to retire from the position at the end of July. He also chairs the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council (NACAC). Ramaphosa's announcement of Cachalia's appointment surprised citizens, with many questioning the reasons behind it and whether he is the most suitable person for the job. He was born on 22 July 1958 in Benoni, and his political journey began at a young age. While at university, Cachalia, along with his brother, Azhar, were arrested for distributing pamphlets to commemorate the Soweto Uprising. Both were severely assaulted and tortured during the arrest. Just three years later, the brothers were again arrested for political activities and detained for several weeks. They were banned under the Internal Security Act and prohibited from participating in any organisations. Despite this, Cachalia remained steadfast in the fight against apartheid. According to South African History Online , he held various leadership positions in anti-apartheid organisations. He played a leading role in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa negotiations. Cachalia also worked with the committee that drafted the first versions of the country's constitution. In addition, he held leadership positions in the United Democratic Front (UDF), African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) and private sectors. In 2022, Ramaphosa appointed a nine-member council led by Cachalia. The Presidency described the NACAC as a multi-sectoral partnership to fight against corruption, fraud and other criminality. Last year, the NACAC chairperson released some of the council's proposals for Ramaphosa. These included the ability to investigate criminal corruption when it is discovered. While the road ahead seems bumpy, the NACAC chairperson has garnered some support. Chairperson of the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Police, Ian Cameron, described Cachalia's appointment as a commendable move. He said it was a step forward in restoring public trust, adding that Cachalia is competent, credible, and serious about good governance. Cachalia will serve as Acting Police Minister from 1 August. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
