Latest news with #NationalDialogue
eNCA
11 hours ago
- Politics
- eNCA
SANCF rejects government's planned talk shop
JOHANNESBURG - The South African National Christian Forum has slammed government's upcoming National Dialogue as a wasteful political exercise. The forum says this is a costly distraction from real issues facing the country. WATCH | National Dialogue | Cash for talks as service delivery collapses The Forum suggests that the R700 million allocated to the dialogue should instead go towards job creation, strengthening the NPA and fighting gender-based violence. It's accused President Cyril Ramaphosa's administration of governing through talk shops instead of action. Bishop Marothi Mashashane, President of the South African National Christian Forum, says that under the administration or presidency, there have been numerous commissions that have resulted in needless expenditure that no one is interested in implementing.
IOL News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- IOL News
From Dialogue to Reckoning: What South Africa Needs Now
Thirty years into South Africa's democracy, we must move beyond superficial dialogue to a reckoning that addresses deep-rooted inequalities and demands real change, writes Faiez Jacobs. Image: IOL / Ron AI 'The People Shall Govern.' Not as metaphor, not as sentiment. As a promise. And a demand. Thirty years into our democracy, South Africa does not need another listening tour, another facilitated workshop, or another high-level roundtable with branded lanyards. We need something deeper. Something braver. Something long overdue. We need a reckoning. The recent announcement by President Ramaphosa that South Africa will convene a National Dialogue, coordinated through NEDLAC and guided by an 'Eminent Persons Group', has stirred predictable fanfare and deep scepticism. It is not the idea of dialogue that alarms us. It is the fact that, for too long, dialogue has been deployed in South Africa not to deliver justice, but to delay it. In place of delivery, we have convened. In place of structural change, we have moderated. In place of urgency, we have performed unity. We have been here before. And we cannot afford to be here again. A country built on dialogue but rarely on equal terms From Kliptown in 1955 to CODESA in 1991, South Africa's path to democracy was shaped by dialogue. But these moments were not equal meetings of minds they were unequal negotiations between a people in struggle and a regime in retreat. We must never forget that our political transition was never designed to dismantle all systems of power. It was a ceasefire, not a complete transformation. The elite pact that underpinned our 1994 breakthrough brought democratic rights but postponed economic redress. Today, those delays have caught up with us. We are the world's most unequal society. Millions of black South Africans still live under conditions that echo the structural geography of apartheid. Youth unemployment hovers above 60%. Public services are failing. State capture hollowed our institutions. Violence, corruption, and despair creep into the marrow of daily life. And in this fragile, fractured context, we are now asked again to talk. But before we do, we must ask: Who is asking for this dialogue? Why now? What for? Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Dialogue, or Deflection? Let us be honest. Much of the dialogue proposed today risks becoming elite-driven spectaclea performance of inclusivity without power-sharing. A repackaging of reconciliation in times of political turbulence. A soft cushion against the hard edges of growing public rage. This new National Dialogue comes with high-profile names, big halls, logos and language like 'shared vision' and 'renewed compact.' But language is not justice. Logos do not build clinics. And dialogue without delivery breaks trust. The danger is not in talking. The danger is in pretending that talk is enough. Our Constitution already provides for participatory democracy. Parliament's committees, ward committees, SGB's, CPF's, RDP forums, municipal IDPs, Chapter 9 institutions all of these exist to facilitate public voice and state responsiveness. If we are serious about rebuilding national consensus, why not invest in strengthening those platforms rather than creating new ones? The answer is clear: we don't have a participation problem we have a delivery problem. We don't lack dialogue. We lack action. The Real Dialogue Happening Outside Power While government convenes its forums, real dialogue happens daily in the silence of broken clinics. In the queues at SASSA. In the burnt tyres of protest. In the quiet rage of mothers burying sons lost to gang bullets or hunger. That is the unscripted, unmoderated, rawdialogue of a society crying for repair, real hope, real change. To those who say this dialogue is necessary for cohesion: let us be clear. Cohesion cannot be built on inequality. Reconciliation cannot be revived while restitution is denied. Real unity requires more than slogans it requires justice that is seen and felt. And to those who say this dialogue is about the future: we say this the future cannot be imagined until the past is confronted. Until the unfinished business of our transition is faced head-on. That business is redistribution. Dignity. Work. Land. Reform. From National Dialogue to National Reckoning What South Africa needs now is not a dialogue. It is a Reckoning. A National Reckoning Plan time-bound, costed, public, and accountable. Here is what it would look like: 1. Corruption Accountability • Dedicated anti-corruption court. • Public progress dashboard updated quarterly. • No dialogue required. Just prosecutions. 2. Public Service Restoration • Professionalise the civil service. • Forensic audits across departments. Get rid of deed wood. Merit and competence based deployment. • Treasury-approved clean-up plan. No slogans needed. 3. Violence and Safety Compact • Dedicated gender-based violence units in all provinces. • Resourced SAPS precincts in crime hotspots. • Community-policing forums with real authority. • Measurable 3-year targets to reduce violence by 70%. 4. Land and Housing • Release state-owned land for housing and smallholder farming. • Title deeds for informal settlements. • Geospatial planning with public oversight. • Justice, not just consultation. 5. Youth Jobs and Township Economies • R10 billion fund for township infrastructure and small enterprise support. • Remove licensing red tape for spaza shops and street traders. • Localise procurement in municipalities. • Youth opportunity desks in every ward. 6. A Real Platform for the People • Strengthen Parliament's portfolio committees as dialogue forums. • Fund civic education, SGBs, and ward committees. • Turn Parliament into the true arena of people's voice not hotels and ballrooms. Dialogue Must Not Substitute Delivery Dialogue is not inherently dangerous. But dialogue without consequence is corrosive. It drains hope. It teaches citizens that participation is performance. That their voices are heard, but never acted upon. That engagement is a dead-end. The greatest threat to democracy is not apathy. It is the experience of being listened to but ignored. This time, there will be no Mandela to hold us together when we fail. This time, failure will explode. Not into civil war, but into permanent distrust, institutional erosion, and a vacuum that extremists, secessionists, and seditionists are already preparing to fill. What Must Be Done This National Dialogue, must be grounded in three non-negotiables: 1. Equal Participation No one should be asked to "participate" unless they are also being resourced, empowered, and heard. Give logistical and financial support to informal workers, rural voices, and youth collectives. 2. Binding Outcomes Every agreement must be costed, time-bound, and linked to implementation agents. We need deliverables, we need accountability, we need delivery, not declarations and leaders who are not only shocked and surprised. 3. Institutional Anchoring The dialogue must be tied into Parliament and the Executives and all levels, not orbitaround and away from it. All outcomes must flow into keeping elected leaders accountable from the top, our President, Ministers, Premiers, MEC's, Mayors, MMC's to councillors via committee work, legislative reform, and budget planning. Let's make Performance Management work and delivery real. The Real Dialogue is in Delivery Dialogue is not neutral. It either reinforces power or redistributes it. South Africans don't need to be heard again. They need to be answered. The ANC must not lead from caution or convenience. We must lead from courage. From conviction. And from truth. The promise of 1994 has been deferred too long. Now is the time to deliver on it not through words, but through work. Let us move from dialogue to reckoning. From performance to policy. From symbolism to substance. Let this be the generation that made justice real. Let this be the moment that reclaimed delivery as democracy. * Faiez Jacobs is a former Member of Parliament, political organiser, and strategic facilitator committed to inclusive governance, ethical leadership, and the renewal of South Africa's democratic promise. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. IOL Opinion
The Herald
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald
Time to discuss the youth — but maybe not
Opinion Given all the spectacles of human weakness, wickedness and wilful self-delusion, Youth Day was quiet Premium 20 June 2025 It's been a startling few days, not least for the great and the good (and also some ANC people) roped into President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue™ (terms and condition apply), who learnt over the weekend that the process will cost about R700m, presumably because their musings will be engraved directly onto sheets of platinum. According to Mduduzi Mbada, deputy president Paul Mashatile's chief of staff, the reason for this price tag is that 'democracy is not cheap', which is, I suppose, why the Guptas paid so much for it when they bought it from some of Mashatile's current and former colleagues. ..
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Clarity sought on alleged R700m cost of National Dialogue
The Presidency's plan to hold a major National Dialogue in August is being criticised for its potential cost, lack of oversight, and uncertain agenda. The proposed National Dialogue has the potential to be another watershed moment for South Africa, as the Convention for a Democratic SA was in the early '90s. Picture: Gallo Images/Die Burger There are concerns about the lack of transparency around President Cyril Ramaphosa's proposed National Dialogue that is meant to take place in a few weeks. Ramaphosa said the country will hold the first leg on 15 August, with the second leg expected to take place next year. Local talks will be held before then. The purpose of this convention is to discuss South Africa's problems and find solutions to them. However, it has been met with anger following an announcement that it could cost more than R700 million. Unions and political parties call for accountability The government has stated that there is no definite figure yet. Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) spokesperson Matthew Parks said he is concerned about the abuse of state funds used for the National Dialogue. 'We can talk about figures like R10 million or R20 million, but R700 million is just ridiculous. 'Government can find ways of ensuring this is done in a manner that is more affordable. We just objected to a VAT hike, it would not make sense for us to agree to this,' he said. Conflicting statements over the proposed budget Parks said Cosatu had engaged with the Presidency and was reassured there is no final figure for how much the dialogue will cost. The amount of R700 million was first estimated by Nkosinathi Biko, executive trustee of the Steve Biko Foundation. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa announces 'Eminent Persons Group' to guide national dialogue – These are the people appointed 'Nothing has been tabled to parliament and Cabinet, so this is random ramblings from some officials and people from foundations,' said Parks. Questions about coordination and purpose Rise Mzansi spokesperson Mabine Seabe said: 'The touted R700 million price tag appears excessive, which is why Rise Mzansi will be engaging with President Cyril Ramaphosa on this matter and timelines both in the buildup to and after the National Dialogue. 'We will use our parliamentary oversight authority to ensure that every rand and cent is accounted for.' ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip said parliamentarians have not been given intricate details of how the National Dialogue will be coordinated. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told SAfm this week: 'There isn't a budget, there isn't a number or a cost that the government has committed to. 'All we have is what has been communicated as a proposal that the foundations have put forward. 'Government is going to be the fiscal custodian of the process and it has not yet engaged in formulating a budget. So the debate about R700 million is completely misplaced and unnecessary.' Dialogue 'must be ambitious' Dr Philani Mthembu from the Institute for Global Dialogue said the dialogue, if done correctly, can be an important tool in addressing problematic legislation and policies. ALSO READ: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven 'If this dialogue is compared to the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, then it needs to be ambitious in what it is trying to achieve. 'For instance, we must ask if this will open up the debate on reviewing the constitution, what elements of the constitution are working and which need to be revised. 'This dialogue could discuss issues such as electoral reform and whether we are ready for new systems that will hold those in power to account. 'It has to be ambitious, otherwise if we just discuss issues such as national cohesion and service delivery, we already know these challenges. Discussing the deep issues will have more impact.' A noble idea? Advocate Sipho Mantula, a researcher at Thabo Mbeki African School of Public & International Affairs, said the idea of a national convention is a noble one. 'Conventions are normally called when there is a national crisis or key issues that affect the country, from governance to the rule of law to the socio-cultural and economic conditions.' Mantula said all state organs and institutions should assist in ensuring the success of the National Dialogue and no-one should be left behind. 'It should begin with local conventions and then provincial conventions that ultimately lead to the National Dialogue,' he said. NOW READ: 'A meaningless publicity stunt by a limping president': EFF slams Ramaphosa's national dialogue call
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
AfriForum fears National Dialogue will turn into monologue
AfriForum says the National Dialogue process is at risk of being controlled by Ramaphosa loyalists. Afrikaner civil society group AfriForum has not ruled out participating in the planned National Dialogue, but is concerned about an attempt to hijack the process from civil society and make it a government issue. AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel said the idea of a National Dialogue is a great one, but it had a false start when President Cyril Ramaphosa made pronouncements on it without consultation with other stakeholders such as civil society. Fears of government 'capture' 'From the AfriForum side, we believe dialogue is desperately needed in the interest of everybody in the country because we are experiencing crises on many fronts. That is why we are very disappointed there was a false start, or not a positive start, to this process with President Ramaphosa's announcement. 'Firstly, it seems as if there's an effort by the government to capture the process and dictate the process, while the idea originally started with the Thabo Mbeki Foundation. And the announcement by the president was done without prior consultation with anybody who has been involved.' Concerns about political loyalty Regarding the Eminent Persons' Group that Ramaphosa announced, Kriel said there were many good people in the group that he respected, but they were selected carefully to ensure that individuals would not criticise the ongoing mismanagement of the country. Kriel said some of the individuals in the group, such as Roelf Meyer, were Ramaphosa loyalists. ALSO READ: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven Call for genuine civil society leadership 'And you know the danger of appointing loyalists of the ANC and Ramaphosa is that this would no longer be a dialogue, it would become a monologue. 'But because this dialogue is so important, we will do what we can to make sure this process is not totally captured by the government and that civil society plays a bigger role,' said Kriel. As invitations to the National Dialogue had not yet gone out, AfriForum would wait before deciding what to do. Mbeki's idea The idea of a National Dialogue was initiated by former president Thabo Mbeki, who roped in other struggle stalwarts' foundations to participate in initial discussions. Mbeki told an SA Communist Party congress in December they would like to see the National Dialogue led by the people and civil society. He said the pre-1994 Convention for a Democratic SA was led by political parties and that should not happen again. Political analyst Khanyi Magubane said: 'We do need a National Dialogue but not another empty talk shop. The committee needs to tell us what this National Dialogue will achieve for South Africans.' NOW READ: Thandiswa Mazwai says she would've accepted invite to national dialogue had Ramaphosa sent it
