Reflecting on South Africa's National Dialogue

 Report to the Church on the National Convention

The National Dialogue which has attracted so much controversy in recent weeks kicked off with a National Convention on Friday and Saturday August 15 and 16 at the University of South Africa campus in Tshwane. As a member of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) advising the dialogue, I was able to attend proceedings on the first day.

Leading up to the Convention, we were challenged by the withdrawal from the planning process of some legacy foundations which had been co-creators of the dialogue with other civil society groups. As a result, a new organising committee was established, and the EPG met with the committee nearly every day, anxious that the Convention should be as inclusive and effective as possible. I do hope we will find each other as South Africans and bring foundations and other parties and structures around the table to create a path together for the good of all. We owe it to each other and those on the margins of society.

Proceedings on the first day started with fierce and fiery voices from NGOs and others. President Ramaphosa took an upbeat approach and sounded determined to make the dialogues—which will unfold in the months ahead—work effectively. In a session—which was too rushed—we then heard from panellists who unpacked how previous national dialogues, both abroad and in South Africa, had worked, and what we could learn from them.

After that we were divided into thematic groups, and I chose the group on the economy. As I said before the Convention, although I know many are sceptical about the Dialogue, the single most important reason I agreed to serve is my belief that if we don’t fundamentally reform our economy to give better opportunities to the poor, our country will be in real trouble.

In our first session we were asked to share our dreams for South Africa. Some of the sharing revealed painful experiences: a small boy raped by men, a father whose daughter suffered femicide, and many other challenges. We discussed what type of conversations need to happen when Dialogue participants meet with people in local communities. Overall, the demands were for radical change, for a much more rapid response to the problems which inflict communities, with an emphasis on making a real impact in rebuilding and healing our society.

Unlike the opening sessions of the Convention, where attendees were meant to be cerebral and polite, the voices in the groups were impassioned. Initially I feared we were going too deeply into issues, too soon. But as people began to open up, we saw vividly how people in our society are hurting, tired angry and fearful for the future. We need to hear those voices. But we are opening wounds, and as the Dialogue spreads into communities, we will need counsellors, or pastors or psychologists on hand.

I left hopeful but worried. Hopeful because since the Zuma Administration, I have been calling for a New Struggle to replace the old struggle against apartheid—a struggle which would include something like the Codesa talks which ended apartheid, including a national grassroots conversation and a “Codesa II” for the economy and the land. The themes of this opening Convention seem to reflect the pillars of what a New Struggle entails. But I do worry that we are ill prepared for containing and directing the feelings that will erupt as we open wounds.

I am also obsessed with the need for solutions beyond talk. For as the Scripture says, faith without action is dead. (James 2:17) The tensions we face in the dialogues which will now unfold have been summarised well by a group of respected grassroots organisations including the the shack-dwellers movement, Abahlali BaseMjondolo, the housing activists, Ndifuna Ukwazi and Reclaim The City, as well as rights groups such as Equal Education, Right2Know, the Rural Women’s Assembly and the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa.

In a statement explaining why they are taking part, this group says the National Dialogue in this form is flawed and its ambitions may be unrealistic. It goes on to add: “Yet it marks a radical departure from past government-led engagements. In some ways, it is a quiet admission: the fate of the nation cannot be left to a government that has poor political will and evidently no solutions. For once, the call is going to the public—overwhelmingly poor and working-class—for answers.

“The poor and working class have long been denied a seat at the table, despite holding valid, urgent solutions. That is why we are here: to disrupt any drift towards a state- or NGO-centric process and to ensure grassroots voices are centred.”

The SACC National Church Leaders group has said we face a historical moment that should not be wasted. They are committed to help create an inclusive, transparent and credible process which will help build “a unified, reconciled, transformed and healed society.”

Speaking for myself, our country, and especially the poor and the marginalised, desperately need an initiative such as this. We cannot afford to let it fail.

††Thabo Cape Town