On Sunday 12 May 2024, in the run-up to the election, former president Thabo Mbeki referred to the need for a national dialogue to offer the people of South Africa an opportunity to have a say in determining the future of the country.
So, too, the parties to the Government of National Unity commit themselves to a national dialogue in the Declaration of Intent of 14 June 2024. “Parties commit to an all-inclusive National Dialogue process – with parties, civil society, labour, business and other sectors – to discuss these and other critical challenges facing the nation. The National Dialogue process will seek to develop a national social compact that enables the country to meet the aspirations of the National Development Plan.”
In his inaugural address on 19 June 2024 at the Union Building, President Ramaphosa briefly referred to this when he said: “We will invite all parties, civil society, labour, business and other formations to a National Dialogue on the critical challenges facing the nation. We will seek, as we have done at so many important moments in our history, to forge a social compact to realise the aspirations of our National Development Plan."
However, we are also reminded that President Ramaphosa does not have the ability to deliver on his promises. In his State of the Nation Address on 10 February 2022 in the City Hall of Cape Town he said, among other things, "We have given ourselves 100 days to finalise a comprehensive social compact to grow our economy, create jobs and combat hunger. This work will build on the foundation of the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan, which remains our common programme to rebuild the economy! To be effective, this social compact needs to include every South African and every part of our society." The 100 days have since come and gone and we are still waiting.
Meanwhile, several foundations have also indicated that such a national dialogue is necessary, and on 25 June 2024 they welcomed such an initiative. This includes the FW De Klerk, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki foundations as well as seven others. They indicated during the event that they would enter into discussion with the government in order to determine a way forward.
The foundations that previously grouped together under the banner National Foundations Dialogue Initiative (NFDI) already presented such an event in Johannesburg on Friday, 5 May 2017, during which all the right things were done and said to pave the way to a national dialogue. The foundations indicated at the time that consensus had been reached that a new national dialogue was essential for South Africa. The NFDI was set to attempt to bring together all South Africans at different levels to purposefully talk about the situation in the country and how they could contribute to (once again) developing a new South Africa.
At that stage and under the rule of Jacob Zuma, it was already clear that the problems plagueing South Africa were too complex to simply leave them in the hands of an incompetent and incapable government. Even then, there was relative consensus among participants about corruption, the necessity of the rule of law and race-driven politics. However, this initiative did not succeed either. Perhaps the exaggerated expectations of the new dawn of President Ramaphosa dampened the initiative — who knows?
In his opening of parliament address on 18 July 2024, president Cyril Ramaphosa again made reference of the need for a National Dialogue. He referred to South Africa as a ‘Cooperation Nation’, symbolised by the social weaver birds. This he applied to the coming together of political parties, the state, private sector and civil society in order to jointly identify priorities and leveraging the strength of each. This he said will bring a “change in the form of governance and reform that leads to the economy growing, with more investment attracted, leading to the reduction of unemployment, inequality and poverty.” The intention is there but is the political will present to address this?
After the 29 May 2024 election, the question must be asked yet again: Does South Africa need a national dialogue? After thirty years of democracy and numerous broken promises, it is clear that something is lacking. There are so many unresolved issues and divergent views on matters such as education, property rights and land ownership, economic growth and development, electoral systems, diversity, poverty, culture and language protection, combating crime, state-supported entities and privatisation, transformation through affirmative action and black economic empowerment, health and much more. We need to start talking to each other again. Perhaps it is necessary to strengthen our democracy and establish a new set of ideals. The National Development Plan of 2012 was a start, but it fell victim to state capture and self-interest.
A report of the Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative (IPTI) of the Geneva Graduate Institute of 2017, which was supported by the UN, may shed more light on the need for a national dialogue. From case studies in Afghanistan, the DRC, Egypt, Mali, Mexico, Somalia and especially the 1990 negotiations in South Africa and other countries, they were able to determine the character traits and commonalities of national dialogues.
National dialogues normally address unresolved issues of national importance that arise particularly from conflicts. These national dialogues usually involve the key national elites, including the government and the largest opposition parties, and in countries experiencing conflict, the military is sometimes involved as well.
Other groups participating in the national dialogue include representatives of wider civil society, women, the youth, business, and religious or traditional leaders. In South Africa's case, it would most certainly include the diverse language and cultural communities as well. These groups were not involved in the Codesa negotiations, which were also a form of national dialogue.
Some of the key findings in the report indicate that
National dialogues can be used as a tool to resolve political crises and pave the way for political transitions and sustainable peace.
While most national dialogues resulted in agreements, only half of these agreements were implemented.
Where a national dialogue led to a sustainable transition, there was generally a consensus among the elites, underpinned by international support and public acceptance.
National dialogues were often employed by national elites as a tool to gain or regain political legitimacy, limiting the potential for actual change.
The procedures for the preparation, execution and implementation of a national dialogue, especially decision-making rules, play a decisive role in the representativeness and legitimacy of such a process.
In conflict areas and especially in cases of mass protest, a national dialogue could sometimes reduce violence by transferring grassroots grievances into a formalised process.
A number of recommendations are made, which include participation as well as selection processes in participation, in addition to decision-making, but important requirements are that the facilitators must be neutral and they must be properly capacitated. The government would, therefore, be excluded from partaking in facilitation itself, but it remains an important role player. Similarly, political parties are important role players, but certainly not the only ones. However, it cannot be a random process either; it requires enormous capacity and resources for it to be a functional tool. Once again, the state can get involved — but only to provide this support.
All over the world, trust between civil society and the governments and elected representatives involved is an important element of good governance. It has been proven in international politics that in the absence of trust, civil society becomes cynical about the political system and apostate from the existing order. If this is allowed to go on for too long, widespread and intense mistrust can eventually turn into a counter-reaction against the political order. Did we see any signs of that in the last election?
The 2024 election in South Africa is perhaps indicative of increasing apathy after a growing trust in democracy. Of the approximately 42 million people who are eligible to vote, only 27.78 million registered. Of these, only 16.29 million voted. This gives us a voting percentage of 58.6%. However, the apathy is unmistakable, because of the total voting population of South Africa, only 38.8% voted. Our democracy, although young, requires greater participation, and trust in the system must somehow be restored.
Therefore, the question is not whether we should have a national dialogue. South Africans want to have confidence in a government and state institutions again. However, we cannot leave dialogue in the hands of the government and politicians. There is too much mistrust for that. We are therefore not concerned about commitments, but rather about their execution.
A National Dialogue must be a process that transcends partisan interests and political agendas. The urgency of a national conversation between South Africans of all languages, cultures and backgrounds can no longer be ignored. We are nowhere near unlocking our country's potential yet, because South Africa remains trapped in the paradigm of who we are and not who we can be. A national dialogue driven by civil society and supported by the GNU and state institutions could break the deadlock. Only then could the social compact become a reality.
Jan Bosman is Chief Secretary of the Afrikanerbond
