There are some important questions to ask about President Cyril Ramaphosa's proposed National Dailogue. (Photos: Bloomberg via Getty Images / Waldo Swiegers / Simon Dawson) 
At face value the concept of a national dialogue has much to recommend it. We are clearly in deep trouble, and many of our problems appear to be getting worse.
The national coalition government appears to have made little progress, our economy is barely stuttering, and the number of people who are unemployed, or under-employed, continues to rise no matter how you define it.
And of course, as President Cyril Ramaphosa pointed out, there is our history of a negotiated settlement that ended apartheid. A settlement that is still blamed today for some of our serious problems.
All of that said, there are some important questions to ask about the wisdom of this idea.
Firstly, very few leaders give up any power voluntarily. Ramaphosa, as leader of the ANC, is appearing to give the impression that the ANC will accept whatever settlement is reached through this process. But at the same time, the ANC will not, easily at least, be able to veto any settlement.
This is hugely significant. For the conspiratorially minded, it may even suggest that he has accepted that the ANC will never actually have a large amount of state power again.
For some, it could even suggest he has very little faith in whoever will replace him as leader of the ANC.
And it certainly reminds us that he has failed to enact a new “social compact”, something he has promised since before he was even elected leader of the ANC.
Different agenda
However, Ramaphosa might actually have a slightly different agenda.
Calls for this national dialogue have been growing for several years. For a long time people called for an “Economic Codesa”, to allow different role players in the economy to sit down and work out how to grow our economy.
The person who has been the loudest in his calls for this event is former president Thabo Mbeki.
Read more: Second Codesa — a seemingly attractive idea that does not translate well into the real world
It is interesting then that his foundation, and the foundations of other former presidents, have not been included in the list of people who are supposed to be guiding the process.
It must be said that including Mbeki, in any form, is unlikely to be constructive. He has shown that he appears focused on protecting his own legacy.
His conduct in the case of the Cradock Four families, in which he opposed an inquiry into the non-prosecution of those denied amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, suggests a very personal motivation.
Read more: Transformative or talkshop: Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue welcomed, but will it lead to real change?
To claim that his character is “priceless” in the face of questions from the families about why the government he led did not prosecute those who killed their fathers and husbands appears to defy rationality.
The sheer number of people involved is also interesting.
Thirty-one people are included on Ramaphosa's Eminent Persons Group from the most incredibly diverse backgrounds.Their role is to guide and champion the National Dialogue.
While there are business leaders and unionists (none of them are current, but they include Bobby Godsell and Bheki Ntshalintshali) there is also a rugby captain (you know the one), a mountaineer (Sibusiso Vilane), a rocket scientist, a storyteller, the chair of the National Planning Commission (Professor Tinyiko Maluleke), both Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane and Bishop Engenas Lekganyane (representing different strands of the Zion Christian Church), one Anglican Archbishop, an actor (John Kani), a football coach (Desiree Ellis) a former Constitutional Court Judge (Edwin Cameron) and Miss South Africa (Mia le Roux may in fact be there not to represent beauty pageant winners, but as a person who grew up deaf, representing people living with disabilities).
While there is much wisdom on this list, it is also not clear what value some others may bring.
Impossible position
And they have now been placed in an impossible position. It would be hard to say no to the Presidency, and yet now they are going to be asked questions about their views on our politics.
Someone like Siya Kolisi, almost universally respected, may find this hugely uncomfortable. Like singers and actors who have made political comments, he has no experience in making trade-offs and has no constituency to protect.
Now they will be thrust into the harsh glare of our political spotlight.
But this list is also curious because of who is left out.
Some ancient schisms, such as that in the Zion Christian Church, are recognised, while others, such as that in the Christian church, are not. There is an Anglican representative but not a Catholic one.
Perhaps more importantly, no one appears to represent that most under-represented group in our politics, those who have no job and no income.
This gets to the heart of one of our economic problems: organised groups that represent people who are unemployed, such as the Unemployed Peoples Movement, are often left out of the conversation and thus they have very little voice in our society.
Huge omission
That said, it is a huge omission.
It should also be noted that the sheer size of this committee may in fact be an attempt to make sure that nothing is done, that no agreement is reached on anything.
This might well be the ruse of an experienced politician, who knows that putting so many people in a room, from so many different parts of our society, will simply result in endless arguments.
Technically, this is supposed to result in a bottom-up approach, where people will be given the chance to speak in different parts of the country.
On paper, this is inherently democratic.
In practice, it can lead to undemocratic outcomes, as the most organised and the loudest voices can overwhelm the debate.
And our institutions have shown time and time again that public consultation can be ignored.
For years energy regulator Nersa has held public hearings before deciding whether to increase electricity prices. Despite so many people publicly opposing tariff increases, power prices have risen by more than 653% since 2007 (inflation during that time was 129%).
Economic reality
The reason Nersa did that, despite hearing from so many people who opposed it, was because of economic reality. Eskom needed the money.
Public consultation is very often about hearing what people want. Making decisions is about what is possible. Nersa has understood that (Eskom has often complained it has not increased prices enough) and thus had to ignore the public comments.
Read more: Nelson Mandela Bay faces electricity crisis: proposed 12.8% tariff hike sparks controversy
This is why bodies like Nersa are given legal authority to make decisions. They can force people to accept the outcome.
This process will have nothing like that.
It is also a fallacy to think that getting people in a room together will result in them getting closer. Yes, it can happen. But it can also lead to heightened tensions.
During the Codesa talks, the stakes were so incredibly high that very few people were prepared to use violence. The one group that was, the right-wing AWB, eventually used an armoured car to disrupt the talks.
But their support was tiny and measured in the hundreds.
There are now people in our society who publicly oppose our Constitution and have used violence in the past. One of them, Jacob Zuma, won the support of nearly 2.3 million people in last year’s election. He will surely demand to be a part of this process.
Incentive
Also, before 1994 all of the parties involved knew there would be an election after the process. As a result there was an incentive to appear to be constructive.
No such incentive will be present in this situation.
Currently, one of the great divides in our politics is between parties and constituencies that support the Constitution, and parties and constituencies that don’t. This process of a National Dialogue risks giving those who oppose the Constitution, in all sorts of ways, a much louder voice.
Imagine, for example, the separatist voices in our society, those who want independence for the Zulu Kingdom, or those who identify as Afrikaners, or who believe the Western Cape really is different to Mzansi, working together to dominate the process.
Also, considering how our politics is in the process of fracturing, creating more parties representing more diverse constituencies, the result could just be a cacophony of voices, making it difficult to come to any conclusion at all.
It is true that South Africa is in a difficult, and sometimes dangerous position.
As Ramaphosa himself said, in his eulogy for Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in 2018: “We must acknowledge that we are a society that is hurting, damaged by our past, numbed by our present and hesitant about our future.”
He was entirely correct.
The history of South Africa, so violent and oppressive, has created deep scars. And thus deep tensions.
Sometimes our society can almost look like the most complicated knot of different types of string. When you pull it, you might be able to make sense of it all.
Maybe.
But you also risk pulling the entire ball apart. DM