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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

3 hours ago

• IOL News

Snubbed Shivambu has plan for new political party

In the wake of his exclusion from the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party's parliamentary caucus, former secretary-general Floyd Shivambu has revealed plans to form a new political party. In a series of social media posts, Shivambu announced that he had received overwhelming support from South Africans eager to register as volunteers for the new movement. It seems that Shivambu may have known that he would not be going to parliament. The name 'Mayibuye iAfrica', a slogan meaning "Africa must return", has emerged as a potential name for the new party. However, the name has already been widely registered by other political entities. Shivambu's efforts will now go head to head with the EFF and the MKP, parties he was deputy president and secretary general of. Shivambu released a series of well-coordinated videos yesterday urging members of the public to register as volunteers. The "consultative process" is said to be the precursor to his party, which is geared at contesting the local government elections. Sources reveal that there is a great deal of lobbying and members of the EFF and MKP are quietly consolidating. Shivambu's exclusion from the MK Party follows a turbulent period within the organisation, which split from the ANC. Shivambu had been slated to take a seat in Parliament after the MK Party completed changes to its parliamentary roster in June 2025. However, he was removed from the list following a breakdown in relations with the party's powers. While the MK Party justified Shivambu's removal following his controversial visit to fugitive televangelist Shepherd Bushiri in Malawi, Shivambu has strongly denied the allegations, accusing the party's leadership of orchestrating a campaign against him. He went as far as to claim that a fake intelligence report was used to justify his dismissal and part of a broader effort to silence his calls for political change.

The South African

4 hours ago

• The South African

Malema slammed for singing 'Kill The Boer' at mass funeral

Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) leader Julius Malema has been criticised for singing Kill The Boer at the mass funeral for those who died in a bus crash earlier this week. Ten people – EFF members – died in a head-on collision near Ulundi, KwaZulu-Natal, while returning home after a June 16 rally in Durban on Monday. Malema has been condemned by his critics – including US President Donald Trump and the world's richest man, Elon Musk – for his decision to back the controversial struggle song. On Sunday, Julius Malema attended the mass funeral of 10 EFF members who were killed in a KZN bus crash. The bus tragically collided with a truck on the R34 near Ulundi in KZN. The funeral – dubbed the June 16 battalion – took place in Vryheid and was attended by the party leader and his leadership. Malema told the crowd of those who had died in the horror crash: 'They died while in pursuit of life. They were travelling with hope in their hearts. But the journey that should have taken them toward opportunity ended in tragedy.' Malema – who used the opportunity to mobilise EFF party members – promised to build a house for the families of those who had died. As he does with many rallies, Malema closed the event by singing Kill The Boer. However, his decision left many South Africans on social media questioning the timing and choice of song. @LangelihleMaph1: 'If there's no connection between these deaths and the Boer, why sing the song?' @MariaJacob49230: 'No respect for the dead, Julius Malema? You're at a funeral, not a political rally! This has been an occasion for a Psalm.' @muzizaks: 'What shameful display for lack of sense of occasion'. Meanwhile, Gayton McKenzie has condemned the EFF and Julius Malema for their decision to sing Kill The Boer. Speaking at the welcoming party for the Proteas at OR Tambo International Airport, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture claimed that the anti-Apartheid song had no place in modern-day society. He said of the national cricket team, which recently won the ICC World Test Championships: 'This country has amazing sportspeople, and it is the greatest sporting nation in the world. If you do not agree with me, or if you want to argue with me, I do not argue with idiots. EFF leader Julius Malema and party leadership in Free State. Image: X/@EFFSouthAfrica 'Today, we had Black, Indian, White, and Coloured kids singing the Temba Bavuma song. Why should we worry about nonsense like Kill The Boer? These players [Proteas] will go places because we have the best team ever. 'Those people who are singing the Kill The Boer song are idiots'. He added in an X post: 'They are the biggest idiots, the current South Africa has no place for such a song. It has no value and contributes nothing towards the SA we are trying to construct. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

Daily Maverick

4 hours ago

• Daily Maverick

Floyd Shivambu and our politics of churn

The decision by former MK party secretary-general Floyd Shivambu to 'consult' before starting a new party is another indication of what could become a dominant trend in our politics. We are now likely to see more parties being formed more often, and, in many cases, failing. This churn is all about palace politics and may lead to more disengagement. Floyd Shivambu's recent trajectory, from his position as deputy leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), to joining the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party, becoming its secretary-general, being fired and now working on a new party is all about position and palace politics. While he and his supporters might argue that it is about ideology, this is hard to square with reality. The EFF describes itself as a progressive pan-African force; the MK party wants traditional leaders to govern (under Jacob Zuma). Clearly Shivambu's claim that joining the MK party was 'the best decision' he's ever made was not true. It now appears likely that he will be expelled from the party and will start a new party. In historical terms this is part of a much longer process. As the African National Congress (ANC) continues to fracture, so more parties are flowing from its former members. It should not be forgotten that this process started with the expulsion of Bantu Holomisa from the ANC. He formed the United Democratic Movement. Since then, there have been many parties that have fought one or two elections and then fallen from view. The Independent Democrats, Congress of the People (Cope) and Agang are good examples of this. But now it appears that the process has sped up, and we can expect many more such parties. While some were clearly non-starters, others fell victim to the kind of palace politics that Shivambu has clearly been involved in. Parties such as Cope and Agang disappeared mainly because of disputes among their leaders. The Independent Democrats disappeared when Patricia de Lille decided to join the Democratic Alliance (DA). When that marriage fell apart she formed another party in Good. Importantly many of these parties do have their roots in the ANC in some way shape or form. This is why Dali Mpofu was not wrong to say that he felt he deserved to belong to the ANC, the EFF and the MK party all at the same time. He was merely speaking about the fact that many of our newer parties have their roots in the ANC. The ANC was easily the most prominent movement in the fight against apartheid, and the way our society was structured at the time meant that most people who wanted to be politically active joined it. Or something that was affiliated with it in some way. Personality politics One of the key features of these newer parties has been that they are so often about personality politics. Many parties are unable to move on past their first leader, because so often, the party is the leader. This then leads to a large percentage of churn — parties that come and go based on the whims of their leaders. This has a huge impact on our politics. And it can lead to absurd consequences In Joburg, Colleen Makhubela became the Speaker after representing Cope as a proportional representation councillor. The party had won just 0.22% of the vote. She used this position to bargain, as she appeared to hold the balance of power between coalitions led by the ANC and the DA. Then she left Cope (or was expelled, depending on whom you care to listen to) and formed the SA Rainbow Alliance. That received 12,450 votes in last year's elections. Following all of that she joined… you guessed it… the MK party. Someone who is able to do that can have no ideology. But apart from the absurdity there are more important consequences. Declining trust The first is that these smaller outfits make forming and maintaining coalitions almost impossible. The fact that it is about individual personalities, and that the leadership of these parties changes so often, means that their behaviour is impossible to predict. This leads to short-lived coalitions in councils and, soon perhaps, the National Assembly. The second is that all of this palace politics of personality will lead many people to conclude, correctly, that none of this is about helping people. While our politics has been through phases of protecting party leaders, or certain classes, now it is becoming more about just individual personalities. But it is all happening in plain sight. Everyone can see it. Which means that voters are likely to simply turn away from our politics. It will lead to greater levels of people simply refusing to vote. All of this could spiral downwards. As more parties are formed and as their leaders use them simply for bargaining in coalitions, so governance will get worse. More and more decisions will be made simply for the purposes of patronage. In turn people will be less inclined to stay involved in our politics. Why vote if you know a party is just a personal vehicle for someone who is not interested in improving your life? This is a difficult dynamic to stop; individuals and groups must be allowed to move from party to party and to form parties when they wish. Some measures, such as those that would limit representation in legislatures to parties that get over a certain percentage of support, might help. But in the end, it appears as if we are destined to have a lot more churn in our politics, with serious consequences as a result. DM