The merits of a national dialogue

Can a national dialogue unite South Africans, or is it just more costly shoptalk? As R700 million is earmarked, SHARMINI NAIDOO says the country is bracing for a bold – and controversial – experiment.

At this year’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), President Ramaphosa introduced the concept of a national dialogue in which all South Africans were called upon to “chart a new path for our country”.

“I call on all South Africans, united in our diversity, to come together in the national dialogue to define a vision for our country for the next 30 years. The national dialogue must be a place where everyone has a voice. It must be a place to find solutions that make a real difference in people’s lives. The national dialogue must reaffirm that each and every one of us has a role to play in building the nation we want. While we may differ on many issues, we agree on one thing: that we need to build a better South Africa and improve the wellbeing of our people.”
– President Ramaphosa, SONA 2025

The national dialogue is intended to be an inclusive, people-led, society-wide process to reflect, reset, and reimagine South Africa’s future. It is a chance for all South Africans, from all walks of life, to come together and help shape the next chapter of our democracy.

Uniting diverse voices for a common cause

The dialogue’s aim is 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 is intended to present an opportunity to forge a new social compact that drives progress towards Vision 2030 and lays the foundation for South Africa’s next National Development Plan. The focus will be on the key challenges facing the country:

• Poverty, inequality, and hunger
• Economic transformation and job creation
• Social cohesion and nation-building
• Gender-based violence and safety
• Governance, accountability, and participatory democracy
• Land reform and food security

The dialogue will follow a phased and participatory process, beginning with local consultations and culminating in two national conventions. Coordination includes an Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Deputy President, a Steering Committee of sectoral leaders, and a Secretariat based at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC).

A legacy of negotiation and national unity

Despite the many conflicts, legal wrangles, drama, and odds stacked against it, the Government of National Unity (GNU) – hailed as a political miracle at the time of its inception – survived and celebrated its first anniversary in June this year.

Against this backdrop, the national dialogue has merit and may represent the next logical step that could give rise to a “people of national unity” in the same way that negotiation and consensus brought about the GNU.

According to Dr Klaus Kotze’s piece from October last year, “The National Dialogue: Pathway to a People’s Plan for South Africa”, a national dialogue is an inclusive and transparent negotiating mechanism used to influence and give shape to a new socio-political consensus. National dialogues have typically taken place in countries undergoing significant political transition, like Benin, Togo, and Yemen. These dialogues involve a broad range of stakeholders collectively discussing issues and proposing pathways to find common ground and resolution. Through extensive public participation, national dialogues gain their legitimacy, which then gives rise to a people of national unity.

Praise, criticism, and cost controversy

The announcement that the national dialogue will begin with a National Convention on 15 August 2025 has been met with mixed emotions. Some political parties and analysts argue that we are “putting the cart before the horse” and that a “dialogue cannot be effective without first properly assessing what’s wrong and how it can be fixed”. Some parties have welcomed the initiative, albeit with reservations about whether it will be effective and lead to real change, while others fear it will be yet another wasteful exercise.

Conflict resolution experts have long maintained that dialogue is essential in negotiations. If we can come together as a nation to solve our problems peacefully and productively – why not?

However, despite its good intentions and potential value, the process has now been overshadowed by a shock revelation: the hefty price tag. It is estimated that the dialogue will cost more than R700 million. This figure has sparked backlash against the presidency and drawn criticism from trade unionists, political parties, academics, and civil society.

In the words of the Dialogue Task Team chair, Nkosinathi Biko, “Democracy is not cheap. Building a nation is very costly!” Indeed, government seems to have a knack for big spending. It appears this is something South Africans may have to get used to – unless platforms such as the proposed dialogue can genuinely eradicate corruption, streamline bureaucratic processes, and eliminate wasteful expenditure.

So, the question must be asked: is such an exorbitant amount justifiable? To date, there has been no indication from National Treasury regarding the allocation of resources, despite the first event being only a month away. Government has yet to earmark the funds.

Should we be spending R700 million or more in the name of national unity when the State’s coffers are already severely strained, and countless other priorities remain on the backburner? These include the country’s significant road maintenance backlog, as the road network rapidly disintegrates – there are reportedly 3,000 known sinkholes and over 25 million potholes across the country (a conservative estimate, at best).

Can dialogue deliver real change?

Unsurprisingly, the jury is still out. For now, we will have to wait and see whether the dialogue will proceed as planned. The Labour Party of South Africa (LP) has launched an urgent application in the North Gauteng High Court to interdict the national dialogue, arguing that it is unconstitutional, irrational, fiscally irresponsible, and excludes the working class.