Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa

The national dialogue is neither national nor a dialogue – but it can become that (Part One)

The national dialogue is neither national nor a dialogue – but it can become that (Part One)
Raymond Suttner
By Raymond Suttner
14 Jan 2025
Facebook
0
Why a national dialogue and what does it mean? How will it be determined who is involved, what is entailed or what is meant by inclusivity? Will it be an elite conception of inclusivity, of so-called ‘opinion makers’?

Part One of a three-part series.


From the first time the idea of a “national dialogue” was mentioned during President Cyril Ramaphosa’s inaugural address, significant aspects of the concept have never been elaborated. Nor have processes necessary for their realisation been spelt out or even articulated. This affects its potential meanings and processes necessary for its realisation.

The words national and dialogue communicate notions embracing a wide range of people, if not everyone, in the country, that may be or become the nation of all South Africans. This may be an integral part of the principle of universalism, which is drawn on in the Constitution and earlier documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Freedom Charter of 1955.

Indeed, that is – in some respects – how government figures and others supportive of the idea advance it. That does not in itself resolve how such statements are interpreted.

The notion of dialogue may bear more than one meaning depending on where it is raised. In South Africa, it speaks to a perceived need to reach out to one another, hear what others have to say, ones who have been “invisible” or ones with whom one may have disagreed or presumed disagreement or experienced more aggressive forms of enmity.

It implicitly or explicitly draws on broad currents of thinking that counsel “sitting down to resolve differences”. These sentiments may draw on Gandhian or Tolstoyan notions of the principle of non-violence and the international law emphasis on the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The call for a dialogue often relates to a perceived problem that needs to be resolved, and where proponents of dialogue articulate phrases like “talking is better than fighting or shooting” or it’s better to “sit down and hammer out an agreement”. I agree with such sentiments and hold by the principle of non-violence and safeguarding peace and mutual respect instead of imposing solutions on people.

The problems we face are well documented, although their character and even solutions could be enriched by extensive consultation.

Qualities of a national dialogue


Among the qualities of a national dialogue, in some of the discussion, is that it ought to entail – as one expects – engaging in communication on a basis that is in line with respect for all human beings. That is again a foundation stone of universalism.

But the government or whoever is taking responsibility for ensuring that the national dialogue “happens” have not taken us into their confidence regarding key elements of any national dialogue that may eventuate. We have no idea whether or not we all participate and how and where this will be made possible. Sometimes universal participation is stated as required, more often it is left vague.

We do not know who comprise the national for purposes of this national dialogue. We do not know the location(s) of the dialogue(s), where it will be held or where – perhaps among the few or in several places – there will be such dialogues. There is no answer that has been offered.

We do not know whether or not the format envisaged will be uniform and what level of diversity in the participants will be allowed or encouraged in terms of the location and population groups from which they emanate. We do not know who decides. When there are decisions by faceless people it raises fears of authoritarianism.

If it is to be in one or a limited set of locations, how does one know what those excluded believe and are any or all such exclusions compatible with a national dialogue? If there has been any such discussion, who decided and why?

How will it be determined who is involved, what is entailed or what is meant by inclusivity? Will it be an elite conception of inclusivity, so called “opinion makers” – for example, captains of industry and leaders of government, religious figures at some levels, trade unions and other well-established professional and other sectors of civil society?

Who will be included and excluded from such a category that is not vague, but has clear markers of who belong and whose work or activities fit the category?

Outcomes


How will it be determined how many meetings the national dialogue will entail? That in turn raises an important and related question. Some members of government and other public figures are already talking about – sometimes with a specific date for agreement – what the outcomes are to be in the sense of agreed documents deriving from the dialogue. Much of the focus in the elite sphere is on a fairly well known concept – a “social compact”, as a key, definable and realisable outcome, that has been part of state, government and ANC discussions with segments of society and – within that – of foundations for some time.

But that can only happen if limits are set on the agenda, on what can be discussed, what is of national importance or who can determine what ought to be part of the national, albeit subject to debate. Insofar as there is a time frame, it is inevitable that some issues will not be on the agenda for debate or any debate on such issues may be more curtailed than others.

But if it is to be a credible venture – described as a national dialogue – it cannot be determined in advance what its outcomes need to be, because those deciding “in advance” will comprise only a portion of the participants and they ought not to be able to predetermine outcomes! If it is an open dialogue, different players may well have very different objectives or end goals.

Common vision


Related to the notion of a social compact is another outcome that ought not to be predetermined before discussions or the dialogue has started – that is, the idea that the outcome of the national dialogue will be a common vision for all South Africans. In President Cyril Ramaphosa’s statement on New Year 2025, he says:  “We will be embarking on a National Dialogue, bringing all South Africans together to develop a common vision for the country.”

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with seeking a common vision. It is part of the motivation of a number of religions, social movements, political parties, liberation movements and others for seeking a national dialogue at one or other time.

People try to find a way in which they can agree on the way forward. Finding the way forward is in a sense a vision. It represents what you see as potentially unfolding, and unless you have commonality on what you see as unfolding, many feel, you can’t really move successfully to your goal.

While advancing a common vision is legitimate, it is untimely to seek a common vision until one has heard and seen exactly what the problems are – from people in a wide range of spheres of society. One needs to wait in order to see to what extent the common vision one may have in mind is compatible with the values and interests of all sections and to what extent differences can be reconciled.

This cannot be statist, that is, with the state and government at the centre. “The people”, words that used to be heard a lot and referred to those mainly at the bottom but also to all in South Africa, need to be heard in their own voices!

For example, we need to all hear what the common experience is of water outages, and what is distinct in the experiences that people have, the extremities that we know are happening in rural areas and other poor areas in and on the outskirts of the cities. We also need, of course, to look at “common areas” like rivers and beaches, where the “water crisis” takes distinct forms and varies in the way it impacts on people and communities.

Once we are more adequately acquainted with these matters and if we can agree on the need to remedy them, not just in the areas of the wealthy, but in everyone’s situation, if that is the case, then we can move towards building a common vision. DM

This article first appeared on Creamer Media’s website polity.org.za

Raymond Suttner is an emeritus professor at Unisa, who spent over 11 years as a political prisoner. He was in the leadership of the UDF, ANC and SACP, but broke away at the time of the Jacob Zuma rape trial.

Categories:

Tags: