The National Dialogue is off to a shaky start, but President Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC are intent on going ahead with what is so far a vaguely defined exercise.
On Friday a National Convention will begin a four-day meeting to come up with a plan. It will oversee the process for multiple National Dialogues across the country over the next 18 months.
Last week, seven “legacy foundations” of struggle stalwarts as well as the FW de Klerk Foundation said that they would not attend the National Convention which will kick-start the Dialogue. They say insufficient time has been given to make proper arrangements. And they are also worried that the process will not be “people”-led.
Yesterday the Freedom Front pulled out of the National Convention, saying it wanted a “solutions driven” dialogue.
The DA pulled out of the Dialogue in protest against the firing of one of its Deputy Ministers. It also thinks the Dialogue will be manipulated by the ANC and is just another talk shop. The Institute of Race Relations, owners of the Daily Friend, is also having nothing to do with the exercise. John Endres, the Institute’s CEO says, “We do not see it as a sincere initiative.”
“In our view it is designed to convey status upon the ANC and Ramaphosa, and to create an impression that their policies – and the National Democratic Revolution – are widely endorsed,” he says.
It is fundamentally a strange exercise − asking people for a way forward, when those elected should be providing that leadership. And its great vagueness suggests that it could be open to interference and manipulation.
With so much going against the ANC both in foreign and domestic policy, the long-delayed National Dialogue has recently taken on a greater urgency for its leaders. The ANC wants to see its policies endorsed across society to ensure that it regains its impetus of the early 1990s.
Nightmare to manage
The Dialogue is a vast undertaking and therefore will be a nightmare to manage. According to the Presidency, about 1,000 delegates from 28 “sectors” have been invited to the Convention. The eminent persons meant to guide the process have only met once. The multiple Dialogues across the country will have to be arranged at least until well into 2027.
With all this pervasive vagueness, we still do not know if we will be able to go along and speak our minds on any subject.
The exercise is unlikely to be derailed, but its political importance could be greatly diminished by its vagueness, overly great ambitions and the vast logistical demands.
The ANC will be sure to use the budget and its management control to try to keep the Dialogue going its way. And the Dialogue is wholly based on an ANC idea that has a flimsy basis and has not proven effective.
The idea behind the Dialogue is that civil society groups, along with the government, business, labour and others, should agree on fundamentals mainly defined by the ANC, to move the country forward.
As described in the official literature, the Dialogue “is a historic process led by civil society and supported across sectors – to bring South Africans together, heal past wounds, and chart a common path forward.”
“We are building a platform for every voice – young and old, rural and urban, across race, class and culture – to shape the future of our democracy through meaningful, inclusive conversations,” an official description declares.
How does civil society lead such a process?
Somewhat amorphous
Civil society is somewhat amorphous. And in any case, we are muddling our way forward to our common future.
No account seems to be taken of the fact that we actually have elections and an elected Parliament.
The real problem is that the ANC has been insensitive to the devastation of our country, the collapsing urban infrastructure, the decay of institutions and our high unemployment, and it seems to ignore public protest about service delivery and much more.
Is the ANC going to suddenly listen because people are saying this in a National Dialogue?
How is it possible to come up with a consensus on the way forward when potentially thousands of groups have spoken?
It is the drafters of the final compact that could have more say than anyone else.
The ANC push for a National Dialogue is in large part because it fits in with its collectivist and corporatist ideology. And it considers that, as the “Vanguard” of the people, it is OK for it to take the lead role.
The idea for the Dialogue comes out of the notion that “social compacts” are a way of moulding society and almost enforcing a consensus. It is much more of a collectivist idea than that of a “social contract” described by 17th and 18th century political philosophers. Social contract theory is a complex area, but the idea is that we have to forgo some individual rights to have, for example, a social security system.
“Iron and rye”
And the “social compacts” do not come close to the sort of deals like the marriage between “iron and rye” industrial and agricultural interests in agreeing on higher tariffs, which paved the way for the rapid industrial rise of Germany in the late 19th century. The sort of deal in South Africa that could propel the economy forward would be one in which business would invest if the government privatised state-owned enterprises and ended empowerment restrictions and cadre deployment. No formal agreement is needed for that to happen.
Social compacts have been of no use in SA in helping generate growth and ensure better security. The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) brings together the big boys of big labour and big business to agree on what they want on key economic legislation and other issues. Community groups are in there, but not much heard, and the jobless are nowhere to be seen. Indeed, NEDLAC rigs the system against job creation.
We are assured by the Presidency that the Dialogue will be representative of the country. That must raise the question as to whether this means the one-third of those of working age who are unemployed will be represented.
The ANC will try to push this as a substitute for bringing about serious reform for growth. It is a pretence of increasing democracy and giving the marginalised a voice.
There is also a risk for the ANC. When “the people” are given a chance to speak, many might take aim at the ANC for the country’s ills as they complain about high crime and poor service delivery. That should also be recognised in the final document.
There is a strong argument that the Dialogue is a misallocation of resources. It will be manipulated by the ANC and is a National Distraction. Although it is not a constitutional process, it just might be best to have as many as possible who broadly uphold liberal values closely observing the process from the sidelines. Given the great unknowns so far, being part of the process might mean no key opportunities to curb this manipulation.
[Image: Markus Spiske on Unsplash]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend