President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcements on convening a National Dialogue have elicited both enthusiasm and scepticism. The enthusiasts believe the dialogue can engage citizens in “defining a clear vision and establishing a unifying programme that inspires new national hope”. The sceptics worry that the dialogue will be “talk for talk’s sake”, a multimillion-rand generation of hot air.
I propose that the dialogue should focus on the socioeconomic dimensions and material substance of reconciliation. It should identify projects and programmes that would close the vast gap between the wealthy and the poor.
This is not a radical idea: it’s consistent with the National Development Plan 2030.
Here’s the radical part: the dialogue should not aim to generate more plans for government action. Instead, it should challenge wealthy individuals, communities and companies to take some responsibility for addressing the crisis of inequality.
To this end, the dialogue should not be a conversation among the political elite and intellectuals. It should provide a platform that prioritises and elevates the voice of poor communities.
Getting the basics right
Several countries, including South Africa, have a rich history of national dialogues, conducted in various ways and for different purposes. While some of them have indeed been a waste of time, others have been fruitful. Key lessons can be drawn from these experiences.
For a National Dialogue to be productive, the following conditions must be met:
- The dialogue must have a clear purpose and focus;
- It must have concrete objectives;
- It must be designed to generate decisions or actionable recommendations;
- It must have mechanisms for accountability and implementation with respect to the recommendations; and
- There must be an agreed-upon process for building consensus among diverse views.
These conditions must be established at the outset. Without them, the dialogue will only generate a lot of noise. It will end with a whimper, not a bang.
A meaningful National Dialogue is not a tea party, chat room or academic seminar. It is a political means to political ends. The anticipated outcomes must be substantively worthwhile, and the dialogue must be designed to achieve those outcomes.
We got it right previously
Our own history is replete with examples of dialogues that met these conditions. In the 1950s, the ANC led a campaign to gather the dreams and demands of millions of people, culminating in the adoption of the Freedom Charter in 1955. For decades, the Freedom Charter served as a progressive vision and a mobilising tool in the struggle for a nonracial and democratic dispensation.
In the early 1990s, the formal negotiations to end apartheid were accompanied by a multiplicity of dialogues. These dialogues were formal and informal, top-down and bottom-up, within and between political parties, and encompassed large swathes of civil society and the public.
The outcome was the interim Constitution of 1993, which marked the death of minority rule.
At the same time, there were numerous sectoral dialogues aimed at developing new national policies and laws. Here, too, political parties, civil society groups and members of the public debated ideas for post-apartheid policy on defence, policing, education, health, land and other areas of governance.
All these dialogues were successful because they had concrete objectives, they were well designed to achieve those objectives, and they had tangible and enduring outputs.
Whither the new National Dialogue?
Some of the proposed objectives for the forthcoming National Dialogue seem misplaced. A National Dialogue will not solve critical problems like crime, corruption and poor service delivery.
It will not magically unfreeze the deadlocked “social compact” negotiations in Nedlac. And it cannot solve the government’s failure to implement its priorities, policies and plans.
Nor, in a well-established democracy, is a National Dialogue the best vehicle for identifying government priorities. These priorities are determined through regular elections that entail a robust National Dialogue and provide a mandate for governance. Through ongoing dialogue in Parliament, the priorities are translated into legislation and policies.
Ramaphosa wants the National Dialogue to forge “a shared vision of what it means to be a South African and develop a new national ethos and common value system”. We will need to be more focused and targeted than this. Our Constitution already provides a shared vision, national ethos and common value system.
My point is not that our Constitution, elections, parliaments and other dialogue mechanisms are perfect. Rather, the point is that a National Dialogue will not transcend or overcome the imperfections.
A National Dialogue for revitalised reconciliation
Thirty years ago we had a tough conversation on reconciliation. The outcomes were inspirational: the new Constitution, Parliament, flag and anthem; the integration of government and liberation armies into new security services; the racial integration of schools and universities; the formal outlawing of discrimination; and much more.
The problem is that this conversation died before the job was complete. South Africa remains mired in gross inequality and socioeconomic division, with class barriers still coinciding with race. This is a shameful betrayal of the millions of people who are unemployed, hungry and beset by criminality.
The envisaged National Dialogue should revitalise the conversation on reconciliation. It should focus on the material substance and socioeconomic dimensions of reconciliation. The primary objective would be to identify ways to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
This dialogue should not be a discussion among elites. It should put the poor, the unemployed and the marginalised at the centre of the conversation. It should offer some dignity to people whose daily lives often lack dignity.
It should be designed to give those who lack a political voice a platform to speak and amplify their concerns and aspirations. This will have important implications for the venues, timing, languages and facilitation of the dialogue.
The dialogue should not be geared towards talking to the government and setting an agenda for government action. The National Development Plan 2030 already constitutes an ambitious and well-thought out plan to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality.
Why should we have a National Dialogue about this decade-old plan? The government must just get on with implementation!
Rather than talking to the government, the National Dialogue should be organised as a challenge to wealthy individuals, communities and corporations: what are you doing about the crisis of poverty and inequality? What can you do about this crisis?
By “wealthy”, I do not mean only the super-rich. If we view “wealthy” in relation to the vast majority of extremely poor people, then middle-class communities are undoubtedly wealthy.
Orientating the dialogue in this way would avoid a lot of moaning and groaning about government failures. It would avoid hot air, pious speeches and intellectualising.
It would avoid reiterating points already contained in existing government policies and plans. It would give agency to the poor. It would generate meaningful action and empowering partnerships.
Designing and running the dialogue proposed here would be politically and technically more challenging than running a series of conventional conferences and seminars.
But a country that organised Codesa and the National Peace Accord structures is surely up to the task. DM