Arguably, the relatively peaceful transition from apartheid to an all-race democracy was the best story of the last century. After decades of a civil war within and outside our borders, South Africans of all races came together to map out a common future in 1993.
The result of this effort was two-fold: first, a new constitution was agreed upon; and second, a general election was held. Though imperfect, all participants accepted the outcome of the election and formed a new government of national unity.
Thanks to Nelson Mandela, the new SA’s founding president, South Africans embraced one another through his flagship project of reconciliation. Under Thabo Mbeki, Mandela’s successor, the country sought to address socioeconomic problems in a purposeful manner. This paid off in higher levels of economic growth.
However, the hopeful human achievement of 1994 has disappointed many. The past 15 years have been especially disappointing.
During this period, the economy has grown slower than the population growth; unemployment particularly of black youths has risen; poverty is still rife despite the extensive social protection programme; and inequality has worsened. Crime and corruption have grown exponentially.
For the past year, prominent South Africans, notably Mbeki and former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas, have called for a national dialogue to discuss SA’s future character.
Ahead of last year’s election, President Cyril Ramaphosa warmed to the idea; a move that secured Mbeki’s participation in the ANC campaign.
Through his foundation, Mbeki rallied other foundations — such as those of FW de Klerk, Steve Biko, Desmond and Leah Tutu and Andrew Mlangeni — to join the initiative. This initiative came after a similar, but less publicised, one by civil society groups including the churches.
Much preparatory work has been done by the foundations. The government has been tardy. Reluctantly and grudgingly, it has agreed to the idea of national dialogue. On Reconciliation Day, Ramaphosa announced a series of steps to guide the dialogue.
We welcome this.
As a sitting president, Ramaphosa has much to lose in this unknown process. So, his green light should be commended as courageous. Hopefully, he candidly listens to the dialogue’s unvarnished inputs.
Our support for the dialogue is not unconditional. This is a magnificent opportunity to re-energise our 30-year-old democracy. It should not be squandered.
First, for this exercise to be genuinely inclusive and legitimate, it should be well resourced. The government should take the lead in its funding. The private sector and international friends of SA should join in.
Second, the government would be well advised not to run it. Our memories are still fresh about the colossal failure that the social compact, Ramaphosa’s other project, turned out to be.
Third, there has to be a clear definition of success. Organising the dialogue can hardly qualify as a success. The outcome of the dialogue — including an actionable plan — is what should constitute success. SA is replete with unimplemented plans.
Fourth, it is vitally important that the dialogue’s purpose should not be to undermine the work of a democratically elected government and legislature.
Finally, the dialogue should not stall the reform agenda of the government. For example, the work of Operation Vulindlela as well as the government-business partnership — on crime and corruption, job creation, energy and logistics — should continue.
As we did in 1994, we can pull this one off too with tangible changes. Alternatively, the national dialogue would be just another exercise in futility. Talk is cheap, and we’re paying the price.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.