National Foundations notes commencement of national dialogue

A national dialogue preparatory committee set up by the National Foundations has welcomed President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement on Tuesday of the national dialogue process, a historic chance for South Africans to reclaim their agency.
The National Foundations consists of 43 civil society groups and 12 foundations including the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation and the Thabo Mbeki Foundation.
'It is rare in the history of any nation for citizens rather than just their representatives to be given an opportunity to embark on a historical reflection about the state and condition of their nation, and their prospects for the future,' the National Foundations said on Wednesday.
The foundations said on April 30 2024, former president Thabo Mbeki, reflecting on 30 years of democracy, made a passionate call for the nation to engage in a dialogue to work a new vision and programme for the next 30 years and beyond. Mbeki then tasked the National Foundations to prepare for the national dialogue.
'Thus the National Foundations became the custodians of the national dialogue from that day.'
The foundations set up a committee to commence with preparations for this initiative, expanding the pool of civil society support for the national dialogue.
'In September 2024, the foundations convened a two-day workshop, attended by close to 50 civil society formations ... to set up structures, ranging from content development, planning and organisation, public mobilisation, fundraising, monitoring and evaluation and marketing and communications subcommittees to anchor preparations for the national dialogue in granular detail.'
The foundations said around the same time, its preparatory committee began engagements with the emissaries of Ramaphosa, who is empowered by the constitution, to call for an initiative of this magnitude and consequence.
'At those meetings the foundations stressed the importance of the national dialogue to be a citizens-led initiative, rather than a government-run enterprise, to help overcome the chasm that has opened up between government and the governed in our country, as illustrated by the fact that only about 40% of eligible voters in our country bothered to vote in the last national and provincial elections in May 2024.'
The foundations said the voter stayaway was a pointer to a massive alienation of the electorate from the democratic project, which ought to be a concern.
'For if the electorate is alienated from the democratic project, what are the implications for the legitimacy for the democratic order. It was thus important that we embarked on an initiative which will result in the citizens reclaiming their agency.
'We are happy that we reached a mutual understanding with the head of state on the essence and approach to the national dialogue.'
The National Foundations said it had greed on all the structures that will underpin the execution of the national dialogue.
'We will, in the coming days, elaborate on the process that will unfold towards the preparatory convention for the national dialogue process scheduled to be held on August 15.'
TimesLIVE

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

28 minutes ago

• IOL News

The National Dialogue must be revolutionary and people-driven

Protesters take part in the defiance campaign, in June 1952, in Johannesburg, by occupying places for white people. The campaign against the apartheid regime's of racial segregation was launched on 26 June 1952 by the ANC and led to the Congress of the People where the Freedom Charter was adopted on 26 June 1955 in Kliptown. Zamikhaya Maseti The much-talked-about National Dialogue is indeed a national conversation we didn't know we needed until former President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki called for it. President Cyril Ramaphosa must be saluted for heeding that call. This gesture affirms that our leaders still speak and listen to one another. It is a tradition of leadership that the younger generation must urgently emulate: speak truthfully and listen earnestly. Accordingly, President Ramaphosa has announced that the National Dialogue will take place on August 15, 2025, at a venue yet to be disclosed. I will not pretend to be a seasoned logistician, but I would like to propose that Kliptown, Johannesburg, be considered as the location. I make this suggestion because Kliptown was the site where our great-grandparents gathered under difficult, illegal conditions on 25–26 June 1955, to craft a vision for a democratic South Africa. Their gathering produced the Freedom Charter, a document that became a lodestar for the liberation struggle. Today, we face an equally historic task: rebuilding the South Africa that was born of their sacrifices. A nation now fractured and drifting, in desperate need of repair. More significantly, 25–26 June 2025 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Freedom Charter. Holding the Dialogue in Kliptown would root it in the moral soil of people's struggles and remove the sting of elitism that so often surrounds state-led initiatives. It would strip the dialogue of unnecessary extravagance. The original Congress of the People saw delegates arrive by bus, taxi, train some even on horseback. In that spirit, we must question the reportedly proposed R700 million budget for this dialogue. Such an amount is not only absurd; it is morally indefensible. I am relieved that the Presidency has rejected that outrageous and outlandish budget proposal. As South Africans of all colours, classes, and convictions, we must ask the most strategic and politically relevant questions: What should be on the table? That is to say, what must be the agenda, and who defines it? Who should be at the table? Who sits where, and who speaks for whom? Are the working class, the agrarian working class, the landless masses of the people, and the unemployed adequately represented? These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the very heart of the dialogue's legitimacy. We cannot assume that 'broad representation' will occur naturally or that it should be left solely to the Preparatory Committee. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do insist that all South Africans must grapple with these questions. A particularly troubling issue is the class composition of the Eminent Persons appointed to guide the process. By and large, they are drawn from the polished ranks of South Africa's middle class if not the elite. The rural poor and the agrarian working class are conspicuously absent. The assumption that the inclusion of traditional leaders covers their interests is false. Many of these institutions remain untransformed, misogynistic, patriarchal, and disconnected from the democratic impulses of the poor. In short, the selection of Eminent Persons leaves much to be desired. Perhaps their exclusion reflects the disorganisation of rural voices, but that is no excuse. The National Dialogue must reflect the totality of South African life. It is ostensibly aimed at navigating South Africa through deep and interconnected crises: a crisis of governance, a crisis of political legitimacy, social fragmentation, and economic despair. The critical question is whether this initiative is a bold act of national renewal or just another elite performance, obsessed with appearances while the nation quietly disintegrates. For the dialogue to have any integrity, it must begin with representative legitimacy. The poor, the unemployed, farmworkers, shack dwellers, and students still fighting financial exclusion cannot be passive spectators. The tragedy of South African democracy is that the people are so often spoken about, rarely spoken to, and rarely allowed to speak for themselves. Will this Dialogue include the real South Africa, or will it be another exercise in managerialism, dominated by technocrats and polite middle-class professionals? The timing of this dialogue is not neutral. It must be seen in light of the failure of the political class to resolve the legitimacy crisis that followed the 2024 general elections. The resulting Government of National Unity (GNU), a patchwork of ideological contradictions, has failed to inspire public trust. This dialogue, then, risks becoming a substitute theatre, a democratic therapy session designed to manage anxiety rather than resolve it. If so, this is not dialogue it is deflection. We must insist that the dialogue confronts structural questions: economic power, historical redress, and the unresolved land question. These matters cannot be handled delicately or deferred indefinitely. We must also address the scourge of bureaucratic unaccountability. Any serious conversation about building a capable and ethical State must begin with real consequence management for public servants who loot, obstruct, or undermine public trust. This national dialogue must not be pacifying; it must be revolutionary. It must be uncomfortable, radical, and people-driven. It must speak to power, not for it. It must demand a reckoning with the nation's unfinished business. We cannot afford a dialogue that dances around the contradictions of our society. We cannot whisper reform in a house already burning. The President may have opened the floor, but it is up to the people to seize the space not as polite guests but as the rightful architects of South Africa's democratic future. If this Dialogue becomes another elite jamboree, it will bury us deeper in disillusionment. But if it becomes a genuine space for democratic reimagination, a re-founding moment, then perhaps, just perhaps, the Republic may begin to heal. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.

Mail & Guardian

12 hours ago

• Mail & Guardian

Lithium rush a crossroads for Zim's future

Zimbabwe's government can use the critical minerals surge to empower communities and foster inclusive development. Photo supplied Africa, which holds Exploitation of these resources should help to boost trade, industrialisation and development, but Africa's track record is littered with examples to the contrary. Resource booms become drivers of corruption, conflict and ecological destruction and weaken governance institutions. Given the continent's economic problems, rapidly expanding population and mounting environmental pressures, there is a closing window of opportunity to ensure this new wave of mineral extraction breaks from historical patterns to become a catalyst for inclusive economic growth and long-term sustainability. Zimbabwe's lithium sector exemplifies both the opportunities and dangers inherent in the global race for critical minerals — a subject explored at a May 2025 conference hosted by the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG) titled Lithium, used in consumer electronics (including batteries), electric vehicles and renewable energy systems, has become an essential mineral to many of the modern industries driving economic prosperity and the global transition to clean energy. As drone warfare continues to revolutionise modern warfare, access to lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries has also become an important Zimbabwe is endowed with substantial lithium reserves. Since 2021, the sector has attracted more than $1.2 billion in foreign direct investment, with But, as The surging demand for Zimbabwe's critical minerals presents a defining choice for both government and mining investors: they can either leverage this opportunity to empower local people and foster inclusive development or fall back into familiar patterns of exploitation. During conference proceedings, several measures were highlighted as necessary to maximise Zimbabwe's chances of seeing the former option. First, Zimbabwe's mining sector requires comprehensive legal and governance reforms to unlock its potential for inclusive development. The current system, which vests mineral rights in the president and is administered through the mines and mining development ministry, creates opacity and excludes key stakeholders from decision-making processes. Transferring these rights to an independent regulatory body subject to parliamentary oversight and accountability would enhance transparency and ensure broader participation in mining agreements. Simultaneously, fast-tracking the implementation of a comprehensive mining Second, prioritising beneficiation to stimulate industrial development and local job creation is essential. In this respect, Zimbabwe passed the On 10 June 2025, the minister also announced (Graphic: John McCann/M&G) This, as CNRG further highlighted, 'should be with immediate effect to prevent further natural capital depletion from unchecked lithium exploitation, which has devastating socio-economic and environmental implications. Zimbabwe's lithium wealth risks being squandered, as unchecked exports, weak regulation and opaque deals undermine its potential for industrial transformation'. Local minerals beneficiation does not always make economic sense. But, where the opportunity for value addition is clear, it must be taken and supported through coherent industrialisation policies. Further to this, China monopolising the sector could undermine these efforts, with Chinese companies A good step in this direction was the first Beyond diversifying investment partnerships, realising the intentions of the Base Minerals Export Control will also require concerted investment in the infrastructure required for local beneficiation projects to operate effectively, a consistent regulatory environment, and decisive action against corruption. Third, strategic resource management should balance national sovereignty with economic pragmatism to maximise benefits from Zimbabwe's mineral wealth. Moving away from disadvantageous long-term trade agreements while avoiding excessive nationalisation will help Zimbabwe capture fair value during price fluctuations without deterring necessary investment. Central to this approach is the need for long-term planning that addresses resource depletion through economic diversification strategies and sovereign wealth mechanisms, on condition that these be well governed. Fourth, community empowerment and In this respect, international best practice frameworks such as the Finally, environmental sustainability and social responsibility must guide Zimbabwe's approach to critical mineral extraction, ensuring that the pursuit of economic benefits does not compromise long-term environmental and social well-being, particularly for the mining communities. Mining operations should be required to adopt cleaner technologies and implement robust mitigation measures, including cleaner coal technologies, where fossil fuels remain necessary for processing. Humanising the broader energy transition can be achieved through gradual, community-sensitive steps rather than disruptive changes that harm rural livelihoods. Upgrading Zimbabwe's obsolete energy infrastructure is essential for supporting both mining operations and broader economic development while improving national energy security. By embedding environmental and social considerations into mining policies from the outset, Zimbabwe can position itself as a responsible supplier of critical minerals while building a sustainable foundation for long-term development that benefits all citizens rather than perpetuating historical patterns of exploitation and exclusion. Sikhululekile Mashingaidze is the lead researcher in Good Governance Africa's Peace and Security Programme and Stephen Buchanan-Clarke is the head of the programme.

IOL News

15 hours ago

• IOL News

Julius Malema: EFF will not stand by as R700 million is looted under the guise of a National Dialogue

By Julius Malema The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) categorically rejects the grotesque and wasteful plan by the so-called National Dialogue Preparatory Task Team to spend R700 million on what they are calling a 'National Dialogue' because we know that it has no bearing on the lives of ordinary South Africans. In a country ravaged by poverty, joblessness, and a collapsing public infrastructure that continues to fall prey to climate change, it is not only irresponsible but deeply immoral to even contemplate such an exorbitant budget for a talk shop for elites. The timing of this announcement is also indicative of an uncaring government that is out of touch with the majority of the citizens of this country. The proposed dialogue with an inordinate price tag is said to involve only two national conventions and an unspecified number of public engagements. The entire project reeks of cronyism and self-enrichment that is deceptively packaged in the language of nation-building in an attempt to fool the public. But the EFF recognises this for the farce that it is. Dialogues do not cost R700 million. What we are currently witnessing is the return of the very same gravy train that stripped this country and its people of its dignity and robbed deserving South Africans of an opportunity to progress out of poverty. The difference is that now it is dressed up in what is being sold as a democratic consultation. Not on our watch! This absurd plan is being tabled at a time when our country is buckling under the weight of an unforgiving cost-of-living crisis. We have just emerged from a battle with Treasury over its callous and illegal attempt to increase VAT by a staggering 2% when the national budget was initially presented. It was a move that would have hit the poor and working class the hardest but failed because the EFF fought for the people and justice prevailed. However, on the horizon looms a fuel levy increase, which will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the price of food, transport, and essential goods. This again will hit the poor and marginalised people of this country the hardest solely because we are led by a government that has made it its mission to cushion the elite whilst exploiting the poor. Yet in these trying times the same government wants to allocate almost a billion rands for a dialogue. A dialogue with no defined outcomes, no constitutional mandate, and no meaningful connection to the urgent crises our people face. This is the epitome of tone-deaf. It is a slap in the face to millions of South Africans who go to bed hungry, study in dilapidated schools, queue at under-resourced clinics, and live in constant fear of crime in communities where police are severely understaffed. The government of Ramaphosa and his GNU can fund a dialogue but cannot implement solutions that will improve the lives of our people. The EFF supports genuine efforts at public engagement and democratic consultation, but we vehemently reject with contempt the idea that close to a billion is required in order for a dialogue to be classified as credible and meaningful. The government is clearly not serious about public involvement because if it were, it would invest that money into capacitating local clinics and building schools, so our kids are given quality decolonised education at all levels irrespective of their backgrounds. A caring government would focus on rebuilding our ailing infrastructure and resuscitating closed factories and industries as suggested by the EFF because that would lead to a working economy that can absorb young people who are currently jobless. Only an ANC government that is aloof with its DA partners can think democracy can be reduced to conferences in Sandton that will entail inflated invoices and no consequences. The EFF does not share those sentiments because we know that our people face more pressing needs. Our people need jobs, and they need them now. Our people need quality healthcare and safety in their communities. Our people need bold action and a country that prioritises the redistribution of wealth and land without compensation. They need action on load shedding and infrastructure collapse, not panel discussions on theoretical unity. This R700 million dialogue proposal is nothing but a vanity project of this failing government. It is looting of public funds. It is a national parade of misaligned government programs. Inflating prices for a dialogue whilst failing to employ doctors or pay educators. It is further enrichment for the elite and their networks who will benefit through tenders and consultancy fees. The near billion-rand price tag is an insult to struggling South Africans and our unemployed youth. The EFF demands full public disclosure of the dialogue budget, line by line. We will not allow this to happen behind closed doors while our people starve. Furthermore, the EFF is exploring legal options to challenge this wasteful expenditure and to prevent it from proceeding. We are also calling on civil society, labour unions, and all patriotic South Africans to reject this abuse of public funds. The EFF will continue to fight for economic justice, for an end to wasteful expenditure, and for a government that places the interests of the poor and marginalised at the centre of its agenda. This country does not need a dialogue as we all already know what our problems are. We need implementation. We need jobs, land, housing, education, healthcare, and safety. We need a government that works for the people, not one that hosts conferences to congratulate itself while the country burns. Julius Malema is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.