On 15 August 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa convened the first National
Convention at the University of South Africa (UNISA). Hosted over two days in the
historic ZK Matthews Great Hall, the gathering was billed as the launchpad for the
much-heralded National Dialogue. According to the weekly letter from the President’s
desk, more than 1,000 delegates from all sectors of society attended the Convention,
alongside members of the Executive, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chief
Justice and members of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG).
A SPECTACLE OF CHAOS – A CHAOTIC SYMPHONY WITHOUT HARMONY
Yet, for all the lofty promises of renewal and dialogue, what unfolded was closer to
farce than statesmanship. Watching the proceedings on television, one could not
escape the spectacle of chaos: a convention stripped of coherence, resembling an
orchestra without a conductor – a chaotic symphony without harmony. The programme
lurched from one item to the next without purpose, while the facilitators, far from rising
to the occasion, seemed overwhelmed by it.
THE LEGACY FOUNDATIONS VINDICATED IN THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED
The spectacle of disorganisation merely vindicated the concerns that had already been
flagged by the Legacy Foundations in their withdrawal statement of the 08th of August 2025.
In that statement, the Foundations decried the government’s heavy-handed
dominance over the preparatory processes, its potential disregard for the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA) in the procurement of services, and the glaring lack
of readiness to convene such a historic gathering on 15 August.
What unfolded at UNISA was therefore not a surprise; it was the predictable consequence of arrogance, mismanagement, and lack of cohesion from what came to be known as the Convention Organising Committee.
The absence of several political parties represented in Parliament, together with the
withdrawal of the Legacy Foundations and other key stakeholders, underscored the
crisis of credibility that dogged the Convention from the start. At the heart of this failure
lies a deficit of confidence-building. Seemingly, no serious effort was made to secure
consensus on the basic principles that should guide a national dialogue. Instead of
persuasion, reassurance, and genuine engagement, the organisers adopted a top
down approach that alienated precisely those voices whose participation would have
lent legitimacy to the process.
This failure is not a matter of opinion alone; it is borne out in the literature on national
dialogues. Christopher Zambakari, writing in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs
under the title “Six Factors for Successful National Dialogues”, outlines six minimum
requirements for success, namely:
- a credible convener;
- deliberate confidence-building measures;
- cessation of hostilities where relevant;
- broad-based inclusion of all key stakeholders;
- a clearly defined pre-consultation phase;
- and concrete plans for dialogue, implementation, and post-dialogue follow-up.
- As he stresses, inclusive preparatory committees are indispensable for building consensus around core issues.
WERE THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED
The question we must therefore contend with is stark: were these minimum
requirements seriously considered ahead of the Convention? And if so, on what basis
did the convenors assure themselves and the nation that these prerequisites had been
met? On the evidence of those two days at UNISA, the answer seems painfully clear:
they were not!
It would be useful at this point to assess the satisfaction of applicable requirements
regarding South Africa’s National Dialogue, particularly ahead of the Convention,
namely, the credibility of the convener, confidence-building measures, broad-based
inclusivity, pre-consultation, appropriate preparatory committees, and a clear agenda.
CREDIBILITY OF THE CONVENER
The very first requirement of a national dialogue is that the convener must command
trust across society. This is where the South African process failed at inception. The
Legacy Foundations were explicit that while the Head of State has the constitutional
authority to call for a national dialogue, the process must be citizen-led in both design
and execution. Instead, the government recast the people’s project into a state-centred
spectacle.
The voice of the Legacy Foundations, as the progenitors and initial organisers of the
Dialogue, is critical because they carry the historical memory, ethical grounding, and
societal legitimacy that a truly citizen-led process demands. These institutions were
not merely advisors; they embody the principles, values, and collective wisdom that
are essential to guide the National Dialogue.
Ignoring their guidance has proven to reproduce the very mistakes the Dialogue was meant to overcome, that is, state capture of a people’s initiative, dilution of citizen agency, and erosion of trust. Their input ensures that the process remains anchored in genuine public participation,
reflective of society’s diverse voices, and shielded from partisan or bureaucratic
manipulation.
For instance, the PTT, originally envisaged as balanced, was swamped with state
officials. At one point, the government even sought to parachute 81 civil servants into
a 40-member Sub-Committee. This turned what was meant to be an independent,
citizen-driven platform into a bureaucratic echo chamber. Credibility, once
squandered, cannot be regained by optics or rhetoric. The government’s dominance
discredited the Convention before the first delegate even walked into UNISA.
CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES
Trust is not decreed; it is built painstakingly through persuasion, compromise, and
respect. The Legacy Foundations pleaded for this. They urged that the Convention be
postponed until October 2025 to allow proper preparation, legal compliance with the
PFMA, and genuine engagement with sceptical stakeholders.
Instead, the Presidency brushed these warnings aside, declaring that postponement would “damage the reputation of the National Dialogue.”
This arrogance turned potential partners into critics. Far from fostering inclusion, the
organisers reinforced the perception that dissenting voices were obstacles rather than
essential participants. Worse still, the government’s last-minute financial allocations (just seven working days before the event) created an atmosphere of panic and shortcuts, precisely the conditions that breed mistrust. Instead of building confidence, it was demolished.
BROAD – BASED INCLUSIVITY
A dialogue that excludes is not the kind of dialogue South Africa needs at this current
conjecture; it is rather a talk shop with no impact whatsoever. The very actors who
could have lent credibility to the process were absent. Several political parties
represented in parliament, including the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the
Democratic Alliance (DA) and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), refused to attend.
Former Presidents Thabo Mbeki, Kgalema Motlanthe and Jacob Zuma, influential
business figures such as Johan Rupert and the Oppenheimer’s, and even controversial
organisations like AfriForum were absent from the tent, which was quite telling.
Inclusivity is non-negotiable, however uncomfortable it may be. We cannot hope to
recalibrate South Africa’s democracy while deliberately excluding those who shape its
political economy, for better or worse. The absence of these voices reduced the
Convention to a gathering of the compliant and the co-opted, resembling an echo
chamber that spoke only to itself.
PRE – CONSULTATION
The “September 50” strategy session of 2024 had already laid a clear foundation that
the National Dialogue should be citizen-led, solution-driven, and anchored in ward
level and sectoral consultations. This required rigorous pre-consultation, distribution
of discussion documents, and the generation of data-driven reports. None of this
materialised.
Seemingly, the delegates of the Convention arrived at UNISA with no background
papers, no fact sheets, and no structured thematic guidelines. Even the commissioned
discussion documents were withheld. This stripped the Convention of substance and
reduced it to what the Foundations rightly called “just another talk shop.” The pre
consultation phase was the stage meant to build shared understanding, which sadly
was sacrificed on the altar of expedience. The result was a 1,000-piece orchestra
without a score and a conductor – a symphony without harmony.
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
If the pre-consultation was hollow, then the preparatory structures were fatally
compromised. What began as a civil society-led Preparatory Committee devolved into
a government-heavy Convention Organising Committee paralysed by divisions and unproductive power struggles.
So acute were these divisions that two conflicting reports on readiness were presented – one to the EPG and another to the President.
The Legacy Foundations pushed for consensus, even securing an independent
facilitator at NEDLAC on 5 August. That meeting concluded that postponement was
unavoidable. Yet within twenty-four hours, government delegates produced a
contradictory account, effectively overruling the consensus. When the President sided
with haste over substance, the civil society partners decided to withdraw. The
preparatory committee was effectively reduced to a battlefield where one side had the
guns of state power.
If the PTT had been coherent, the messy symphony that occurred at the first
Convention could have been avoided. It remains unclear to South Africans why
members of the PTT would fail to find each other if they all proclaim to be earnestly
invested in the National Dialogue for the sake of the country and its future.
A CLEAR AGENDA
Finally, a dialogue without a clear agenda is doomed to drift. My view is that the
National Dialogue was supposed to begin with a hard look at South Africa’s journey
since 1994, drawing on credible data from institutions like Statistics South Africa, and
then move into scenario planning exercises such as the indlulamithi-scenarios-2035.
Instead, the Convention disappointingly lurched from one incoherent segment to
another.
Without discussion documents, without structured frameworks, and without expert
inputs, the gathering became a theatre of confusion. The Legacy Foundations had
warned against this dilution of programming quality, stressing that the Convention
needed to set the agenda for the ward-level and sectoral dialogues to follow. Instead,
the “springboard” collapsed under the weight of its own disorganisation.
It is clear that when measured against Zambakari’s six criteria, South Africa’s National
Convention failed every test. The convener lacked sufficient credibility, confidence
building was insufficient, inclusivity was sacrificed, pre-consultation was abandoned,
preparatory committees collapsed, and the agenda was incoherent. What unfolded at
UNISA was not the launch of a generational renewal but a betrayal of it. The
Convention proved, in part, that when government centralises what must be citizen
led, the result is not dialogue but debacle.
WHAT ARE THE BROAD IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONVENTION?
The disarray at UNISA does not end with two days of speeches, incoherent panel
discussions, and procedural bungling. It casts a long shadow over the very future of
the National Dialogue itself. What was meant to be a springboard now risks becoming
a deadweight.
Firstly, the Convention has undermined the credibility of the broader process. If the
launch is marked by confusion, exclusion, and arrogance, why should citizens trust
the ward-level and sectoral dialogues that are supposed to follow? The Foundations
had warned against this very danger that cutting corners and centralising control would
destroy the integrity of the process before it even began. That warning has now
materialised.
Instead of inspiring confidence, the Convention has deepened cynicism.
Secondly, the Convention has reinforced the legitimacy crisis of the state. In a country
where, according to the 25 Edelaman Trust Barometer South Africa, only 36% of
citizens trust the government and voter turnout has collapsed to below 40%, the
National Dialogue was a chance to rebuild trust through genuine inclusion. Instead, it
confirmed suspicions that the government sees dialogue not as a platform for
accountability but as a stage-managed performance to pacify a restless citizenry.
Rather than strengthening democracy, the Convention may accelerate its hollowing
out.
Thirdly, the Convention has weakened the principle of citizen leadership. The
September 50 and the Legacy Foundations were clear: this process must be citizen
led in both form and substance. But UNISA demonstrated the opposite: a government
run show disguised as a people’s forum. If this pattern persists, the ward-level
dialogues risk degenerating into exercises in co-option, where citizens are invited to
participate only as spectators to decisions already taken.
Finally, the Convention has created a dangerous precedent of expedience over
integrity. By insisting that the Dialogue proceed on 15 August despite glaring
unpreparedness, the President signalled that political optics matter more than
substance. This sends a chilling message that even generational projects of renewal
can be subordinated to the short-term calculations in the calculus of power of those in
office. If the National Dialogue is to be rescued, this precedent must be reversed.
In sum, the Convention has placed the entire project on life support. Unless it is
radically reclaimed and returned to its citizen-led foundations, stripped of state
dominance, and rebuilt on trust and inclusion, the National Dialogue will go the way of
so many past commissions and compacts: remembered not for what it achieved, but
for how it squandered a historic opportunity.
RECLAIMING THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE
If the National Dialogue is not to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, it
must be radically reclaimed and reset along the principles first envisioned by civil
society. In line with the Foundations, I recommend the following:
Restore Citizen Leadership
The Dialogue must return to its foundational principle of being citizen-led in both form
and substance. Government cannot convene, control, and preside over what is meant
to be the people’s process. Citizens, through ward structures, civic organisations, faith
groups, trade unions, and business forums, must set the agenda, choose the
facilitators, and hold government accountable, not the other way around. The
government’s role should be supportive and logistical, not directive or dominant.
Unlike government-led Imbizos, where the state is the lead organiser and final arbiter,
the National Dialogue must treat government as one sector among many. Beyond
providing logistical support, the government must actively participate as a stakeholder – no more, no less! Public representatives, administrators, and civil servants should
contribute their perspectives as part of the broader national conversation. But let there
be no confusion: government must not dominate or direct the Dialogue.
Equally, however, its voice should not be marginalised. A truly citizen-led process
acknowledges the government’s role without surrendering leadership to it.
Rebuilding Confidence Through Transparency
Trust is the main currency of dialogue and transparency is its guarantor. To rebuild it,
every aspect of the process, including but not limited to funding, procurement,
representation, agenda-setting, must be transparent and publicly accessible. No more
co-branding of state logos, no more secrecy around budgets. Independent oversight
structures drawn from civil society and professional bodies must ensure full
compliance with the PFMA and international standards of financial governance.
Essentially, the transparent the processes are, the greater the premium of trust the
citizens will afford the Dialogue through their active participation as both ambassadors
and contributors. Hence, it is extremely important that all the information regarding the
Dialogue must be easily accessible even terms of languages that are used to
disseminate the information.
Broaden Inclusivity
Exclusion is the death of dialogue. Former Presidents, opposition parties, powerful
business families, trade unions, youth formations, and even controversial institutions
like AfriForum must be persuaded to take part. Their voices, however inconvenient, are
part of the nation’s reality. As the Foundations argue, there can be no “holy cows” but
rather the Dialogue must be underpinned by the sacred principle that all South Africans
have a right to be heard and to prosper.
Inclusivity must also go beyond elite actors. A true National Dialogue cannot ignore
the voices of the rural majority, people in peripheral and marginalised communities,
and persons with disabilities, whose daily struggles embody the very failures this
Dialogue seeks to address. If their voices are not heard, the Dialogue risks becoming
another elite compact, disconnected from the lived reality of millions. A people’s
process must be exactly that – a forum where the least heard are given priority, not left
at the margins.
Re-anchor the Dialogue in Substance
The Dialogue cannot continue as a “talk shop.” It must be content driven. This means
issuing discussion documents, thematic papers, and fact sheets in all official
languages before each round of dialogue. It means drawing on credible data from
institutions like Statistics South Africa and scenario-planning exercises such as
Indlulamithi.
Above all, it means moving from rhetoric to solutions by offering concrete,
actionable proposals with timelines and accountability mechanisms.
Ultimately, reclaiming the Dialogue requires more than polite reform; it demands a
reassertion of people’s sovereignty. If citizens do not seize back the space from
government gatekeepers, the National Dialogue will become another broken promise,
filed away alongside the unfulfilled recommendations of the TRC, the Zondo
Commission, and countless other reports. But if reclaimed, defended, and rooted in
people’s power, it could yet be the generational opportunity South Africa so
desperately needs.
Finally, the National Dialogue is not a spectator sport; it is a collective endeavour that
belongs to all of us, especially the youth who carry the torch of our nation’s future. It
is time for citizens to rise, claim their seat at the table, and insist that their voices are
not only heard but actively shape the national agenda. Like an Orchestra, our society
is composed of diverse instruments in the form of voices, ideas, and aspirations that
must come together under the guidance of a capable conductor.
Without the right leadership, even the most talented instruments risk discord; with it, we can produce a harmonious symphony whose melody soothes, inspires, and unites. Let us demand
that our National Dialogue be conducted with vision, integrity, transparency and proper
coordination, so that the music of our democracy resounds clearly, inclusively, and
powerfully. The time is now for us to lift our voices, to reclaim the Dialogue, and to co
create a future where every citizen can play their part in the symphony of our nation.
Discover more from Radio Freedom
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
