The upcoming National Dialogue has attracted a flood of criticism for being yet another talk-shop about the country’s problems. In Nelson Mandela Bay, we have a different idea – let’s have a talk driven by solutions and action.
South Africans are abuzz with commentary and criticism of the National Dialogue announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa – mostly, and validly, centred on the view that the last thing the country needs right now is yet another talk-shop.
Read more: National Dialogue — Promising concept or an illusion of progress for SA?
Read more: Transformative or talkshop: Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue welcomed, but will it lead to real change?
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.
Ordinary people all over this country are tired of hearing politicians talking; they have been saying this for a long time, and even more vociferously since the announcement of the National Dialogue, which is already looking to be a drawn-out process of talk and more talk continuing into next year.
Meanwhile, the people of this country are highlighting the urgent need for action and change. They want jobs; they want to be able to do business; they want public services that work – healthcare, education, policing, transport, water, electricity; they want not to be dodging potholes; they want to see the corrupt behind bars.
The principles of broad participation and diversity of voices – a “people-led, society-wide process” seeking a shared vision and common values through the National Dialogue – are all well and good. However, as an intervention to bring about change, the whole initiative lacks a sense of urgency, seemingly blinded to the realities on the ground in our metros, cities, towns and rural villages that are fast becoming unlivable, unworkable and not conducive to retaining the investment we need to create jobs and grow the economy.
The envisaged outcome of a “programme of action to shape the future of the country” is also all well and good, but any plan is only as good as the people who implement it – their capacity and commitment, the support and resources at their disposal and how they are held accountable for delivery.
Functioning municipalities are the foundation of service delivery to citizens and an enabling environment in which business can operate and create new jobs. Municipal dysfunction is now a critical hindrance to economic growth, and improving this level of government should be the absolute key priority.
The Auditor-General’s latest report on municipal audit outcomes presented a damning indictment of the dire state of financial management and performance management, stalled and delayed infrastructure projects and absence of accountability, which underpin failing municipal service delivery and crumbling infrastructure.
The extension of Operation Vulindlela into addressing municipal service delivery, along with the review under way on the white paper on local government, are urgent and critical interventions that must lead to local government reform.
Central to such reform must be the appointment of capable, qualified people and the effective performance management of officials and contractors that leads to actual consequences for non-delivery, underperformance and criminal actions.
However, we are not operating in a policy vacuum in the meantime.
South Africa is highly effective at developing policies and plans – we have a lot of very good structures and systems on paper; we are just not very good at implementing them.
Our own version of dialogue
That is why the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber proposes that this metro has its own version of a dialogue, focused less on talk and more on action.
Dialogue, by definition, is a two-way street, a place where all parties can have their say. Just as important, if not more so, is that dialogue involves listening. Listening to the people on the ground who have first-hand knowledge and lived experience of the problems and who know what needs to be done to fix them.
Dialogue is not mere conversation; it needs to come to a resolution, followed by action. That is the only way we will advance along that two-way street towards achieving positive change. Otherwise, we are endlessly circling a roundabout of conversation with no way to change lanes and exit onto the road towards our destination.
Like the National Dialogue, such a “metro dialogue” must be broad-based and participatory, involving local government, the business community and representative civil society organisations. The provincial government should be involved too, as well as relevant organs of the national government and state-owned entities such as Eskom and Transnet, because their support will be required to effect the change required.
The difference is that this local dialogue would focus on solutions and actions, on enabling the implementation of plans and policies already in place and holding those doing the work accountable.
The principle is local solutions to local problems. Local communities – in a broad sense of a business community in a particular sector or area, residents of a neighbourhood or township, NGOs working on similar issues – know what the problems are in their areas, they know what needs to be done about them, and they must be heard. A top-down approach driven out of a government office is not the answer.
More than 70% of this municipality’s income is derived from business customers. Business must be listened to, and through the Business Chamber, we have a business community incredibly willing to roll up their sleeves and offer expertise and resources to support the municipality in fixing problems.
While the blame for all of the Bay’s problems cannot be laid solely at the door of the Municipality, the political instability and resulting failure in the administration is at the root of the failure to have the basics in place to support living and doing business here.
A local dialogue must press for a solution to root political interference out of the running of the administration, particularly in supply chain management and appointments of contractors.
Revolving door
The revolving door of acting city managers must be closed. In five years, at least 14 city managers have come and gone, many of them in an acting capacity, and we are on our third acting administrative head since the start of the 2024/25 financial year. Instituting an appointment process to recruit a permanent, qualified, experienced and competent city manager is imperative, and should not be a difficult thing to do.
Similarly, recruitment must happen for the many municipal directorates headed by acting executive directors for extended periods, some also regularly revolving, and the substantial vacancies in funded posts at senior management level, for essential technical skills and in service delivery-related posts such as electricians, plumbers and artisans.
Solutions exist for the metro’s unacceptably high losses in revenue for electricity and treated water. We need to stop talking about them and implement them. Eskom, for example, stands ready to assist the municipality in addressing its electricity losses and financial unsustainability (what should be a profit-making function running at a R1.3-billion loss) through its Active Partnering programme – the politicians just need to say yes.
Read more: Nelson Mandela Bay is the most ‘fixable’ metro in SA
The city is regularly faced with threats of the National Treasury withholding essential grants because of under-performance and non-compliance with grant conditions, and serious under-spending on capital and maintenance budgets (less than a quarter spent halfway into the 2024/25 financial year).
The required infrastructure investment and maintenance can take place if suitable contractors are appointed timeously and the money available is spent effectively. An inability to spend money should be an entirely solvable problem, particularly if the supply chain management is capacitated and permitted to do its work without interference.
In the news just this past week, the municipality announced plans to spend more than R1-million refurbishing dysfunctional “business hubs” meant to support township entrepreneurs. The reason for this? The three facilities have decayed because of vandalism and theft, some hijacked by other organisations and one relying on illegal electricity connections.
This highlights the municipality’s inability to secure key infrastructure through security facilities and personnel, with surveillance, monitoring and response to prevent vandalism and theft. Again, a problem solved simply by hiring the appropriate services.
The work of 11 geographic business clusters supported by the Business Chamber, as groups of businesses coming together to speak with a united voice and working together to address problems specific to their areas, we have seen a wave of solution-implementation and positive change.
This includes businesses collaborating to clear litter and illegal dumping, repaint road markings, provide security to electrical substations, install street lighting and security cameras, repair potholes and clear stormwater drains – there is a long list.
Similarly, technical task teams on electricity and sanitation, comprising engineers, other experts from business and senior municipal officials, are recording successes in improving the performance of the sanitation system and key electricity networks.
This shows that partnerships and collaboration work, that fixing the metro’s problems is possible.
As much as we are tired of “talk-shops”, one of the great things that does come out of not only talking but listening to each other, is the formation of collaborations and partnerships – where we meet in mutual interest across boundaries of place, race, class, culture, religion or competing business interests and act together to bring about change.
The municipality’s acceptance of the help offered and agreement to work with business and civil society on the myriad problems requiring attention across the metro will be key to driving action and implementing solutions coming out of our proposed metro dialogue.
In announcing the National Dialogue, President Ramaphosa said the idea was not a new concept in South Africa, that “having dialogues is part of our DNA as a nation”.
Yes, as the President said, we did end apartheid and establish a democracy through dialogue. But we are 30 years down the line and still face possibly even worse poverty, inequality and unemployment than we did in those days of optimism and hope of the “rainbow nation”.
Action and change – that is what we want to see out of any kind of dialogue, and it is up to us as “ordinary” South Africans to make it happen. DM