Renowned author Margaret Atwood aptly expressed that violence is often the consequence when dialogue breaks down. She said: “War is what happens when language fails.”
It’s an eery sentiment but one that is as cautionary as it is prescriptive.
Language, when used for conciliation, is a powerful tonic and tool. When we want to defuse tensions and work towards a shared understanding and cooperation towards a collective goal, it is incumbent on us always to look to language when conflict threatens.
Justice, however, has to be at the centre of peaceful resolution because where justice does not exist, there can be no lasting peace.
Our history is littered with examples of what happens when people fail to engage in dialogue and the unfortunate truth is that it often results in one thing: violence; and in its most extreme manifestation, war. We are witnessing it playing out in places such as Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia.
Many have criticised our National Dialogue, for various reasons. I have not been as quick to be critical as I understand that for as long as people are still willing to sit around the proverbial table to talk, hope for peaceful resolutions of our differences still exists.
Those of us born in the 1980s and before will remember Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was not only an eminent African scholar and diplomat, but was also the UN’s sixth secretary-general. Notably, Boutros-Ghali served his fraught term as the world emerged from the Cold War, and while the Rwandan genocide and Angolan war raged and – significantly – as South Africa emerged from the shadow and destruction of apartheid.
He was charged with bringing about peaceful resolution in a particularly incendiary geopolitical climate and believed dialogue was paramount in dispute resolution, but what stands out for me is his emphasis that: “Peacebuilding is a matter that concerns every country. War and democracy, and war and development don’t go together. In other words, peace is a prerequisite for achieving democracy, as well as disseminating the culture of peace and knowledge in its comprehensive sense.”
As a traumatised country, and with its burgeoning 30-year-old democracy, South Africa owes it to itself to choose a path that rebukes a descent into a wholesale brutalising of its people, particularly having witnessed the ravages of war on our continent.
Communication is frequently referred to as a soft skill, and it is often overlooked as something that is not imperative to achieving mammoth goals or objectives.
Yet it has often been found that where there is sufficient clear, comprehensive, constructive and consistent communication, the needs of an institution, organisation or country are sufficiently met.
So a call to dialogue is not wrong. It is not counterproductive; it is not weak.
Instead, it is an opportunity for us to commit to nonviolence, talk honestly about the cracks in our society and come up with practical solutions to close and reinforce those cracks so that we remain united in our resolve towards forging the country we want. It is an opportunity to recognise the things that polarise us and commit to honouring the work towards peacebuilding as the only viable option. DM
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
