Latest news with #NationalPlanningCommission
The Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald
National Dialogue must inform policy, not only be a tool for venting: NPC
With ructions among participants only a week before the convention to usher in the planned National Dialogue, the advisory panel of experts within the National Planning Commission (NPC) has called for a focus on the goals of the process. 'We are conscious of the importance of ensuring implementation and hope the issues and concerns raised during the National Dialogue will be taken seriously enough to inform policy changes where necessary,' the entity said on Friday. The National Dialogue is slated as a process to bring together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, women, youth and community voices to find common ground and new solutions for the country. It was announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa as an opportunity to forge a new social compact that drives progress towards 'Vision 2030" and to lay the foundation for the next national development plan (NDP). The NPC, created in 2010, is the custodian of the NDP and advises government on the country's long-term plan to eliminate poverty, unemployment, and inequality by 2030. The agency said the National Dialogue comes amid a lack of faith and confidence in institutions of authority. 'In such a climate of mounting public cynicism, the process must honestly acknowledge the failings of the state, political parties and powerful individuals. It must also recognise the pain, suffering and sacrifices of those who are brave enough to express them at these gatherings. 'For the National Dialogue to be a success, leaders across the spectrum will need to demonstrate levels of maturity, altruism and commitment and act in the best interest of the people of South Africa to rebuild trust and ensure accountability.' The NPC said there also needs to be clarity and transparency concerning the roles and responsibilities of the roleplayers involved, and for citizens to be empowered with accurate and timely information to encourage their participation. Action points should flow from the process, the NPC said. 'We welcome the initiative and the opportunity to support the National Dialogue, [however] the NPC wants to caution against the process turning into what is colloquially referred to as a 'talk shop', a national catharsis and emotional ventilation with limited practical outcomes. 'While the need for change is easy to recognise, the effort that accompanies the change is much more difficult.' The statement came as the legacy foundations of former political leaders pulled out of the preparatory task team for the August 15 convention, citing concerns about government control over what should be a citizen-led initiative and funding of the processes. TimesLIVE
TimesLIVE
4 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
National Dialogue must inform policy, not only be a tool for venting: NPC
With ructions among participants only a week before the convention to usher in the planned National Dialogue, the advisory panel of experts within the National Planning Commission (NPC) has called for a focus on the goals of the process. 'We are conscious of the importance of ensuring implementation and hope the issues and concerns raised during the National Dialogue will be taken seriously enough to inform policy changes where necessary,' the entity said on Friday. The National Dialogue is slated as a process to bring together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, women, youth and community voices to find common ground and new solutions for the country. It was announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa as an opportunity to forge a new social compact that drives progress towards 'Vision 2030" and to lay the foundation for the next national development plan (NDP). The NPC, created in 2010, is the custodian of the NDP and advises government on the country's long-term plan to eliminate poverty, unemployment, and inequality by 2030. The agency said the National Dialogue comes amid a lack of faith and confidence in institutions of authority. 'In such a climate of mounting public cynicism, the process must honestly acknowledge the failings of the state, political parties and powerful individuals. It must also recognise the pain, suffering and sacrifices of those who are brave enough to express them at these gatherings. 'For the National Dialogue to be a success, leaders across the spectrum will need to demonstrate levels of maturity, altruism and commitment and act in the best interest of the people of South Africa to rebuild trust and ensure accountability.' The NPC said there also needs to be clarity and transparency concerning the roles and responsibilities of the roleplayers involved, and for citizens to be empowered with accurate and timely information to encourage their participation. Action points should flow from the process, the NPC said. 'We welcome the initiative and the opportunity to support the National Dialogue, [however] the NPC wants to caution against the process turning into what is colloquially referred to as a 'talk shop', a national catharsis and emotional ventilation with limited practical outcomes. 'While the need for change is easy to recognise, the effort that accompanies the change is much more difficult.' The statement came as the legacy foundations of former political leaders pulled out of the preparatory task team for the August 15 convention, citing concerns about government control over what should be a citizen-led initiative and funding of the processes.
Daily Maverick
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is out of touch with African grassroots
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue, intended to forge consensus around a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP), is yet another reminder of how disconnected our leadership has become from the realities South Africans face daily. While our communities grapple with gender-based violence, crime, corruption, inequality and social fragmentation, what we are being offered is not the opportunity to confront these urgent crises head-on, but rather a carefully curated event, far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. This disconnect becomes even more glaring when we consider the lessons of the past. Back in 2009, when the original NDP process began, the National Planning Commission, chaired by then Minister Trevor Manuel, was clear about the distinction between lofty ideals and actionable plans. 'Visions are visions. They are broad, frequently general. They are aspirations,' Manuel warned. 'But plans have to be detailed, supported by numbers.' Ramaphosa's proposed dialogue feels like yet another broad, aspirational exercise disconnected from practical, measurable action. The missing first step: returning to our roots of authentic dialogue Growing up in an African community, Ramaphosa would have been shaped by traditions that prioritised meaningful, grassroots engagement. Justice under the tree, gathering around the fire and community problem-solving were never abstract ideals; they were lived, practical realities that anchored decision-making in language, culture and shared understanding. Our Constitutional Court itself reflects these principles, embodying restorative justice rooted in African traditions. We saw the same values during the Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1991, where South African leaders, activists, economists, ANC officials, academics and business leaders came together to confront the harsh realities of apartheid and imagine a different future. Importantly, they engaged with humility, urgency and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths – not in corporate boardrooms, but through inclusive dialogue grounded in real experiences. Somewhere along the way, Ramaphosa seems to have lost sight of these foundational principles. The fundamental flaw in Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is that it skips the most crucial first step: genuine engagement with the communities most affected by South Africa's challenges. This is not merely a matter of consultation; it is about ensuring any national conversation is grounded in real data, authentic voices, and the uncomfortable truths that emerge from township streets, rural villages and community halls. Without this foundation, dialogue among elites becomes premature, uninformed and, ultimately, disconnected from the problems it claims to address. The reality on the ground: excluded frontline voices In my recent experience of engaging with three police stations on their approach to gender-based violence (GBV), it became clear that the very people tasked with delivering justice are underprepared, unsupported and excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Officers openly expressed frustration at their lack of training and resources, especially when dealing with GBV cases. Some even asked, 'How do we begin to report and deal with GBV cases?' It was deeply concerning to hear officers say that they don't know how to deal with one of the biggest issues the country is facing. If Ramaphosa spent time listening to those on the front lines – police officers, community workers, survivors – his policies would be shaped by reality, not disconnected visions. But right now, these critical voices are excluded from shaping national solutions. This concern reflects a broader problem: the people working on the front lines are systematically excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Many operate within broken systems, with little institutional support, resulting in failed justice for survivors and growing public distrust. These are the voices and experiences that should inform any national dialogue. Building an informed foundation: the path forward Before any national dialogue proceeds, we need to start where the real South African story is being lived – around fires, in community halls, on street corners – speaking directly to those affected by these challenges. Language, culture and context matter. Social consensus cannot be built in luxury venues when trust, understanding and practical solutions have yet to be built at the grassroots level. This means conducting proper research, gathering credible data and creating space for diverse communities across South Africa to share their lived experiences. We don't need to reinvent solutions – South Africans already know what works: authentic, community-driven engagement, leadership grounded in reality, and a willingness to hear hard truths. Return to roots Ramaphosa must return to the spaces where he once witnessed genuine, grassroots dialogue. We need honest, uncomfortable, face-to-face conversations with those carrying the daily weight of South Africa's hardships. The president would do well to take cues from his own comrades, notably Trevor Manuel, whose original NDP process recognised that vision alone is meaningless without measurable action rooted in lived experience. Likewise, the lessons of Mont Fleur show that during times of deep division, bold, inclusive conversations driven by ordinary people, not staged events, can help reshape South Africa's future. The president faces a clear choice: continue with another sanitised, media-friendly gathering that delivers little beyond soundbites, or embrace the messy, uncomfortable, yet potentially transformative work of authentic, community-based engagement. Until that first critical step is taken, this so-called dialogue remains premature, disconnected and destined to miss the very voices it claims to elevate. Anything less is performative politics – a detached exercise in optics, wasting state resources that should be directed towards solving the very crises this dialogue claims to address. DM
Daily Maverick
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Criticism of the National Dialogue is necessary, but too heavily reliant on magic and myths
Opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative has continued to spread and swirl. It is, in one sense, a good thing; people are engaging with the initiative, and a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary. That applies as much to governments we put in place, as to the opposition. Setting aside the stock-phrase peddlers, the knee-jerk responses — and there is a serious problem with some of the responses — one of the standard responses has been that it is, or will be, a 'talk shop'. I have no major problem with that; it will be a talk shop, in the sense that we have to, actually, sit down and have a serious discussion about what has gone wrong in the country over the past two decades. Justice Malala's response in the Financial Mail was strange, yet somehow predictable. I only recently discovered that he had decamped to the US. I am of the belief that there is a reciprocal relationship between societies and individuals forged through culture socialisation and institutions. In this sense, I should situate Malala's response, but not here, not now… In fairness, Malala strikes the right notes, but then makes the fatal error of judging something that has not happened, not yet anyway. This might have to do with apparent predictive genius. Surely, we cannot say what has happened to something before it has, actually, happened. I shall remain happily confused and ignorant. The problems he identified are beyond dispute. The big thing, at least to me, is that he is correct about that thing I tried to spread when I was in the secretariat of the National Planning Commission over four years or so. It's quite simple, I told public servants in local, provincial and national government. You start by not confusing ambition with achievement. Holding a meeting or establishing an inter-ministerial committee is not an achievement. You have to start somewhere, though. This brings me to a second response (among several) to the National Dialogue. One of the responses that I found disingenuous, is the statement by the former president of the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber, Loyiso Dotwana, that 'we do not need to 'unpack' our social and economic problems, yet again. We know what they are. What we need is capable, competent, skilled and experienced people implementing solutions.' It has a nice ring to it, innit! There are two difficulties I have with this; one is ideological and the other is practical. Pragmatism as a ruse The ideological has to do with the terribly weak notion of pragmatism as somehow the abandonment of ideology. Pragmatism, such as it is, is actually very much an ideological position and sits most comfortably with liberalism and more especially with the endism of the early 1990s. That was when liberal capitalism was presented as triumphant, and the end-point of human (social) evolution. According to its proponents, this was part of the end of ideology, and that end-of-history nonsense. One of the better examples of 'pragmatism' presented as non-ideological is Singapore (much loved by people who believe that the prime desideratum of all human endeavour is to make money, build flashy skyscrapers, shopping centres and housing developments), where pragmatism essentially meant obeisance to liberal capitalist fundamentalism and authoritarian governance – and from the outset taming or co-opting organised labour… Singapore's sycophants would conveniently ignore the period of effective one party-rule (this is undergirded by the belief that ideas and ideologies are simply in the way of making money and 'making a living', which is, actually, precisely the ideological foundations of liberal capitalism, and its place among the transnational capitalist class). There has been a raft of scholarship on Singapore's transnational capitalist class affiliations which is most prominent in its relations with Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. That country gets high on 'macho-meritocracy' and 'value-neutral technocracy' and outright Chinese dominance, which has since its inception sidelined and overwhelmed the native people of the Malay island. In a terribly racist statement, Lee Kwan Yew has said that Singapore was not ready for a native person to be prime minister! (See 'Are We Ready to be Colour Blind?' The Straits Times, 17 November 2008.) This is an important part of the research and ethnographic work I have been doing in South East Asia over the past two to three years (and more than 10 visits since 1991). For what it's worth, none of my visits to Singapore were funded by the government, which has spent a fortune on junkets and 'educational' visits and tours, mainly, it should be said, so it may curry favour with other countries, and along the way deflect from the injustices at the base of the erasure of the Malay population, first by the British and continued by the Chinese settlers. Never mind the racism or Chinese supremacy; as long as there is money and glittering skyscrapers it's all good. Or, as one (Chinese) interviewee told me in March 2025: 'We don't mind corruption or [illiberalism] as long as there is development.' There's a lot more, from de facto one party rule from 1968 to 1981, the continued dominance of the People's Action Party, and how it has contributed to an 'insulated process of policymaking' and public caning as a form of judicial punishment. This is decried (rightfully) as barbaric when it is done in Muslim countries, but it is perfectly acceptable in Singapore because nothing should stand in the way of making money or building the next skyscraper — not even a Sikh holy place or shrine… The practical element and wilful blindness I should not spend too much time on the practicalities issue. Dotwana is correct in that we know what our problems are, and as he wrote 'what we need is capable, competent, skilled and experienced people implementing solutions'. So far so good. Except, capable people, competent people, skilled people and experienced people do not appear magically from the ether. Implementation does not happen magically either. The writer throws shade with the use of the term 'unpack' (I get that), but public policy-making and implementation do not occur mystically. When, for instance, there is talk about evidence-based policy-making, which comes with its own liberal and/or free market ideological baggage, someone has to actually read and discuss the evidence; the facts and the significance of such facts. Employing capable, competent, skilled and experienced people includes vetting processes, which do, unfortunately, take time. The best appointments aren't always the best people, as we know from cadre deployment — includes deployments by the Democratic Alliance! So, all things considered, questioning Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative is fair and necessary. But attempting to steal the moral high ground through tiresome slogans reproduced from liberal capitalist orthodoxy cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. It is more a sign of intellectual laziness and wilful blindness. I am nowhere near the centre of public policy-making, but I know the difficulties there are with making public policy (global and national) under choking conditionalities and resistance — especially the powers that are at play in the process. We can, of course, just avoid talking about the country's problems and wait for capable, competent, skilled and experienced people to show up (magically), and things to fall in place (magically). Ultimately, making the country more prosperous, more stable, with high levels of cohesion and trust among the population will not occur without direct intervention — not unlike the highly interventionist Chinese government of the Malay state of Singapore. DM
Daily Maverick
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
From consultation to action: The critical role of the National Dalogue in SA's future
Dialogue cannot be effective without first properly assessing what's wrong and how it can be fixed. The National Dialogue announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa two weeks ago aims to foster unity in South Africa and find collective solutions to the country's multifaceted challenges. The initiative, which has been under discussion for years, will involve a wide range of societal sectors. It starts with a National Convention on 15 August 2025, which will set the agenda for the broader dialogue. The aim is to forge a social compact to drive a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP). A National Dialogue Preparatory Task Team has begun mobilising civil society, establishing various working committees. A second National Convention, planned for early 2026, will consolidate proposals from the various engagements into a national vision and implementation programme. Consultation is essential but insufficient to develop a common understanding of our poor growth trajectory. We may think we know why South Africa is not growing inclusively and rapidly, but an authoritative assessment is needed to determine what is wrong. Collective discussions of these challenges can then shape a plan of action. South Africans want action, and are well aware of the pressing issues Ramaphosa listed, such as poor social services, high unemployment, widespread crime, corruption, food inflation and economic stagnation. What they do not see is a plan to carry the country forward. It is naive to think that such a plan will emerge from broad consultation without preparatory work by issue-level experts, which is then made available for public critique. This needn't be a lengthy process. This logical route was used to develop the current National Development Plan (NDP 2030). Each phase in its drafting allowed room for consultation and engagement, providing an excellent example to emulate. Key challenges identified The process started with establishing the National Planning Commission (NPC) in May 2010 by then president Jacob Zuma. Led by Trevor Manuel, the NPC spent the first year developing its impressive Diagnostic Overview, which identified key challenges. The current National Dialogue process should start with a similar analysis. The subsequent development of NDP 2030 involved wide-ranging consultations, with the overarching goals of eliminating poverty and reducing inequality by 2030. A first draft for comment was released in 2011, and the Cabinet adopted the final plan in August 2012. But because the purpose of the exercise was primarily to ensure a political offramp for Manual — a political challenger and irritant to Zuma — subsequent attention was limited, and the plan was essentially shelved. The National Dialogue should develop a follow-on NDP to 2043 or 2053, aligning with the third and fourth 10-year implementation plans of the African Union's (AU) Agenda 2063. South Africa has rhetorically supported Agenda 2063 and hosts the AU Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa's Development secretariat, which oversees Agenda 2063. It would send an important message to other African countries if South Africa aligns its follow-on NDP with Agenda 2063's successive 10-year action plans, as other African states are now doing. The Institute for Security Studies work on long-term futures across Africa uses 2043. Our experience is that a long horizon (e.g. to 2050 and beyond) is easily ignored by governments fixated on electoral cycles. Politics will inevitably encroach on the process. By March 2026, when the dialogue is set to conclude with the adoption of a programme of action, Ramaphosa will have little more than a year left of his presidency. The African National Congress (ANC) selects a new leader in December 2027, with Deputy President Paul Mashatile the most likely contender to lead the party into the 2029 general elections. ANC's downward trajectory Irrespective of its choice of president, these polls will probably see the ANC continue on its downward trajectory, emerging at best as the largest party in a coalition government. Recent polling even suggests the ANC will be ousted to the opposition benches. It is important to ensure that any plan emanating from the National Dialogue survives beyond 2029. Practically, that means the Eminent Persons Group (the more than 30 people appointed to guide the dialogue) and the Steering Committee must be isolated from politics and serve as the incoming planning commission. Alternatively, the group should be endorsed by the parties comprising the current Government of National Unity, given their commitment to shared governance. The location, mandate and composition of the dialogue's Task Team and Steering Committee are therefore vital. At first glance, locating the day-to-day operations of the secretariat in the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) appears attractive. Nedlac provides a platform for dialogue between the government, business, labour and community organisations to address economic, labour and development issues. But the council has not engendered much confidence, and a forum for dialogue is not an appropriate place for national planning, monitoring and vision. The logical location remains within the Presidency, given the importance of proximity to power when translating good intent into impact. Developing the follow-on plan The current 27 National Planning Commission commissioners' terms end in 2026. It makes sense — since they have already been appointed and announced — to formally align the dialogue's Eminent Persons Group with the commission, allowing them to assume responsibility for developing the follow-on plan, serving as commissioners. Finally, South Africa is cash-strapped. When he tabled the 2025/26 national Budget, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana included the dialogue as one of six unfunded spending priorities. The preparatory committee has apparently mentioned R700-million to finance the process — enraging many South Africans. It is a stretch to argue that such a costly dialogue is more important than the other unfunded items Godongwana listed — all of which are pressing and would make a practical difference to growth. These include the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa's rolling stock fleet renewal, replacing the gap left by the United States' withdrawal of Pepfar (Aids relief) funds, and funding for the Chief Justice and Statistics SA. It appears that the Task Team, comprising more than 50 organisations representing foundations, non-governmental organisations, community-based groups and the Presidency, has yet to present a budget to the Treasury. The National Dialogue is crucial to confronting South Africa's deep-seated problems and fostering a unified approach to building a better future. But it must be grounded with appropriate analysis and consultation, driven from the Presidency, reviewed regularly and must assume a time horizon aligned with Agenda 2063. DM
