Whose national dialogue is it and for what purpose?

General Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa at the National Dialogue on Coalition Governments at the UWC August 3, 2023. Holomisa, leader of the United Democratic Movement which forms part of the government of national unity, first called for national dialogue, the writer says. Picture: Leon Lestrade / African News Agency (ANA)

By Bheki Mngomezulu

Following the call for a national dialogue made by former president Thabo Mbeki when he was canvassing for the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal, and since President Cyril Ramaphosa has embraced the idea, the issue has gained momentum and currency.

But whose national dialogue is it and what purpose would it serve in South Africa?

The dual question is important for two reasons. First, it forces us to reflect on who the real initiator of the idea was so that it can be credited correctly.

Second, the question implores us to establish whose interests a national dialogue would serve. For example, would it appease the initiator? Would it satisfy the political egos of Mbeki and Ramaphosa so that they could appear to be honest implementers?

Importantly, would such a national dialogue produce tangible results that would better the lives of South Africans?

What is puzzling is that, 30 years into democracy, we are trying to figure out how to resolve the country’s endemic socio-economic and political challenges. What did we, as a country, learn in the past three decades?

Does the problem lie in getting new ideas about how to resolve the country’s challenges or is our main problem the lack of implementation of the ideas we have crafted?

The answers we provide would assist us in making an informed and grounded decision about the call for a national dialogue.

Perhaps it is important to begin by tracing the history of the call so that we can subject it to a correct analysis, being mindful of its context.

The discussion was initiated by the United Democratic Movement’s General Bantu Holomisa when he called for a National Convention for South Africa. He proposed such a consultative process should last no less than 18 months.

He also proposed that the various stakeholders to be engaged included the government of the day, political parties – those represented in government and those outside – academics, business bodies, leaders of faith-based organisations, NGOs and traditional leaders. In a nutshell, it would be an inclusive process.

The reason stated for such a consultative process was that it had become clear in the past 30 years that the ANC could not single-handedly address all the country’s challenges. As the UDM put it, the main goal was to collectively examine and address the challenges with which the country was wrestling.

Drawing from past experiences of government-initiated processes that failed to yield positive results, the UDM proposed that such a national dialogue should be facilitated by an independent organisation, not by the government or any of the political parties.

The rationale for the proposal was that it would ensure neutrality and enforce trust among all the participants. Now that the idea has been embraced by the two ANC leaders, what form would the national dialogue take?

Would it be as envisaged by the UDM or would the Government of National Unity (GNU) run it on its terms? Who would facilitate it? Would there a be trust deficit if politicians got involved? Who would prepare the terms of reference to guide the process?

The country having a GNU after the May 29 general election is a blessing in disguise. The initiator of the idea, the UDM, is part of the GNU. Those who embraced it, the ANC, are part of the GNU. Other political parties that did not formulate an opinion about it are also part of the GNU.

Importantly, parties like the EFF, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party, ActionSA and others are not part of the GNU. For the process to be inclusive, these parties should also be involved in the discussion.

At the centre of it all is the public. Any national dialogue that excludes the masses of the country would be a futile exercise. In that sense, the stakeholders proposed by the UDM are relevant.

A different question could be phrased: Does the country need another Convention for a Democratic South Africa? Is it true that we, as a country, don’t know what needs to be done to fix our problems or is the problem our failure to implement the decisions taken?

If we failed to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Zondo Commission, would we implement the outcomes of the national dialogue?

The questions are not meant to paint a pessimistic picture. Instead, they anticipate what we should expect once the consultative process has been completed.

Depending on whose national dialogue this would be, we could guess the purpose it would serve. It is for this reason that the questions about whose dialogue it would be and for what purpose are worth addressing before anything else.

The call for a national dialogue is not wrong in principle – if we didn’t know what needed to be done to fix South Africa’s problems. If we did, our investment should be in putting systems in place to implement programmes and projects that would take the country out of the woods.

If the ANC was able to partially fix our problems in the past 30 years, the GNU could do better working together. However, the main problem is that some of our politicians tend to be fixated on party politics even if they are part of the government.

* Prof Bheki Mngomezulu is director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at the Nelson Mandela University

** The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of The African