Government's dialogue plan, costing R700 million, is facing public backlash
The exclusion of the Mbeki, Mandela, and Kathrada foundations from the National Dialogue has sparked backlash, with analysts suggesting it's because they've been openly critical of Cyril Ramaphosa's leadership.
The South African government's plan to spend R700 million on a national dialogue, labelled 'Codesa 2.0,' has sparked intense public criticism and deepened concerns over the country's leadership priorities.
Announced as a nation-building platform to address South Africa's social and political divisions, the initiative promises community dialogues, a national convention, and a 30-year action plan. Yet for many South Africans facing poverty, unemployment, and a failing public service system, the plan feels disconnected from everyday realities.
'Dialogue is important, yes, but R700 million for what?' asked political analyst Sibongile Mafu. 'To talk while people are unemployed, hungry, and living without basic services?'
The programme includes a National Convention in August 2025 involving over 1 000 delegates, followed by six to nine months of public engagements. An Eminent Persons Group will also be appointed to serve as ambassadors, and the process aims to produce a long-term plan focused on jobs, inequality, education, health care, and land reform.
However, critics argue that the plan is light on measurable outcomes and heavy on cost. Civil society leaders and analysts warn that the initiative risks becoming another bloated government project that benefits consultants and politically connected insiders, without delivering meaningful change.
'This is another elite circle pretending to solve problems while enriching themselves,' said Vuyo Dlamini of the Civic Accountability Forum. 'We have seen this before — commissions with big budgets, catchy slogans, but no real accountability or results.'
The plan has also drawn comparisons to the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into state capture, which cost over R1 billion. While it exposed widespread corruption, few prosecutions have followed, leading many to doubt whether high-cost state-led initiatives can achieve real reform.
A key concern raised by the public is the apparent silence around unresolved political scandals, especially the Phala Phala affair involving President Cyril Ramaphosa. Social media users have warned that unless the dialogue directly addresses such issues, it will be seen as lacking credibility.
'If this dialogue avoids Phala Phala, it fails before it starts,' one post read. 'It will be another expensive distraction from real accountability.'
Economist Lindiwe Radebe echoed these concerns: 'We do not need another national conversation, we need delivery. People are desperate, not for more speeches, but for working water systems, electricity, and jobs.'
Amid growing anger, hashtags like #TalkShopForFriends and #R700MillionForWhat have gained traction online, reflecting frustration with a political establishment that many see as out of touch.
As the project prepares to launch, trust in the process remains fragile. Far from uniting the nation, the dialogue may be highlighting just how wide the gap between citizens and their government has become.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
ANC slams DA National Dialogue boycott
JOHANNESBURG - The ANC has hit back at the DA's decision to both boycott the National Dialogue, as well as to oppose budgets of Ministers Thembi Simelane and Nobuhle Nkabane. Spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri says the DA needs to decide whether they are part of the GNU, or an opposition party within the executive. The DA has been outraged by President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to fire Deputy Trade, Industry and Competition Minister, Andrew Whitfield. Meanwhile, Ramaphosa says he exercised his constitutional prerogative and responsibility when he fired Whitfield.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The why behind the surge in Christian fundamentalist hate against transgender people
Two researchers explain the disinformation tactics used by Christian fundamentalist groups to attack transgender and gender-diverse people. Christian fundamentalist organisations are tailoring deliberate anti-transgender messaging in South Africa and other African countries, framing 'gender ideology' as a form of attack on them. Why is this happening? The anti-transgender language is explicitly developed to deliver a message that transgender people are a threat to cisgender women's rights and safety, and to the family, and they disseminate that message to the public with pseudoscientific messaging. The disinformation is deliberate, designed to question the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people and justify discrimination against them. Dr Ingrid Lynch is an independent researcher and research fellow at Rhodes University with years of experience and published peer-reviewed papers about gender. In one of her reports, she notes that these groups primarily leverage religious fundamentalist narratives in two key ways: by positioning themselves as defenders of the ordained 'natural' or 'traditional' family. However, in South Africa, less than a third of families conform to this narrow two-cisgender heterosexual biological parent model. The notion of protecting the family, Lynch argues, is really about exclusion – about determining who does and does not deserve social and policy protections. 'Ultimately, this 'pro-family' messaging excludes most South African families and undermines any real support for their wellbeing,' says Lynch. Common entry points for fundamentalist groups have included opposition to comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), the rights of LGBTIQ persons and their families, and safe and legal abortion. But in recent years there has been a sharp increase in opposition to the rights of transgender and gender-diverse people, especially regarding access to gender-affirming healthcare. 'There are still people who have prejudiced ideas about homosexuality and gender diversity. But this Global North anti-trans rhetoric is not organic. It is fermented in countries like the US and UK and exported to African countries. It comes back to Christian nationalism and the far right. These movements promote a narrow vision of national identity tied to conservative religious values. 'There is a rigid idea of what a family should look like, which for so long was used against same-sex marriage and LGBTQI+ rights. That is being bolstered again to attack the rights of transgender and gender-diverse people. This very particular idea of what a family should look like, within that ideology, does not accommodate gender diversity. 'Because it is rooted in a very patriarchal system, we are seeing how the rights of not only trans women but also cisgender women are being eroded again. These groups cling to the patriarchal gender binary and the traditional view of women, often tied to white supremacist ideas about race and national identity. In the US you see it at political rallies where they talk about the great replacement theory – a conspiracy claiming that certain groups are being 'replaced' demographically – and pronatalism,' says Lynch. It is an absolute and violent reinforcement of the gender binary. Jenna-Lee de Beer-Procter, a clinical psychologist and researcher, who provides mental healthcare to transgender and gender-diverse people, says: 'Gender diversity unsettles the dominant order. In societies that are built around rigid ideas of gender, where cisgender identities are treated as natural and unchanging, the idea that gender might be fluid, self-determined or simply different is seen as threatening.' Children are not protected The typical response is 'we want to protect children' when gender-affirming care is withheld. Fundamentalist groups struggle to influence policy using straightforward religious rhetoric alone. Lynch explains that 'they undermine the rights of transgender people by targeting gender-affirming healthcare'. These groups often claim they protect the 'vulnerable' and advocate for 'exploratory psychotherapy', essentially a form of conversion therapy that has been discredited as unscientific and inhumane. 'They constantly invent new terms and distort research to justify denying transgender youth access to gender-affirming care. Pseudoscience has become one of their main tools,' says Lynch. 'If they genuinely cared about transgender and gender-diverse children, they would care about them not being discriminated against. And they would accept the fact that they exist. They want to delay care and withhold any affirmation in the hope that it will go away. This leaves a child with no support. Instead, focus on ensuring that transgender youth don't have to face bullying in schools, and on creating a sense of belonging and safety regardless of a child's gender identity. It is heartbreaking that this argument is used,' says Lynch. De Beer de Beer-Procter adds: 'The harm done is immense. When care is delayed, distress increases. When identity is doubted, trust breaks down. And when young people are forced to prove they are 'really' trans before being believed, they learn that support is conditional and that they must perform their pain in just the right way to be taken seriously. Many give up. Some are forced to seek care in unsafe or underground ways. Others simply learn to disappear. 'What gets called caution is often a refusal to see – or to listen. And while it may protect institutions or adults from feeling uncertain, it leaves trans youth alone in their pain. That's not protection. That's abandonment,' they say. Questioning gender-affirming care under the guise of 'concern' within a society which privileges cisgender people over transgender people is anything but neutral. Power is not distributed evenly when certain groups are afforded more visibility, legitimacy and safety than others – not always because they ask for it, but because systems have been built around their experiences and assumptions. Cisgender people occupy this dominant position. They are not asked to prove their identities, explain their pronouns or justify the healthcare they receive. Their gender is taken for granted as 'normal', 'natural' and the 'default'. Trans people, by contrast, are consistently positioned as questionable. De Beer de Beer-Procter explains: 'Our identities are scrutinised. Our access to care is debated. Our presence in schools, hospitals and public life is treated as controversial. In this context, so-called neutrality doesn't create balance – it reinforces stigma. And it sets back the hard-fought progress we've made in securing gender-affirming care, legal recognition and the basic right to exist without being treated as a problem to solve. What's more, the 'concern' being expressed is rarely based on accurate information. Gender-affirming care is routinely misrepresented as rushed, reckless or automatic – as though thousands of children are being hurried into life-altering decisions. 'But this is simply not true. In South Africa, access to gender-affirming care is already extremely limited. Public provision exists in only a handful of clinics, often with yearslong waiting lists. Only one public clinic in the entire country offers support to trans youth. In the private sector, trained endocrinologists, social workers and mental health professionals are few and far between – and the costs place them far out of reach for most families,' says De Beer-Procter. 'Feminists' to the rescue? Some so-called feminists are also claiming that their rights are in danger. Describing themselves as 'gender critical feminists', they don't support the rights of transgender people. Most notable is JK Rowling, with Helen Zille recently echoing similar talking points in a social media post. 'I don't call them feminists because there is nothing feminist about their views. By upholding deeply misogynistic beliefs, they become complicit in their own oppression,' says Lynch. 'They can't see how something like bathroom bans against trans women is going to hurt all women. Do we really want cisgender women to have to prove that they are 'feminine' enough to be recognised as women? Are we okay with the fact that these gender-critical groups want us to police all women, including cisgender women? They are not feminists, they are not recognising that this absolute attack on transgender women is enforcing patriarchal oppression.' Lynch stresses that protecting rights is not a competition. 'We can and should all fight for cisgender women's rights – in the workplace, in reproductive justice and to ensure safety.' She points out that globally the leading cause of physical and psychological harm to women is violence within their intimate partnerships. 'But this particular flavour of so-called feminism is rooted in whiteness, it is not intersectional. It overlooks the experiences of women facing multiple and overlapping forms of oppression, including those often marginalised within feminist spaces. They cannot see beyond their own privilege. If they could, they would look at the data and fight for the urgent issues affecting all women.' The evidence is there The claim that there's a 'lack of evidence' is one of the most common, and most misleading, arguments used to question gender-affirming care. De Beer-Procter explains: 'We have longitudinal studies, clinical audits, qualitative research and systematic reviews that all point to the same thing: gender-affirming care improves mental health outcomes, reduces distress and increases wellbeing – especially when it's timely, respectful and affirming. 'But no amount of evidence will ever feel like 'enough' to people who aren't actually looking for evidence. For many of the most vocal critics, the real issue isn't about data; it's about belief – that everyone is either male or female, that this is fixed at birth, and that it reflects some 'biological truth'. 'But that belief doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's not supported by science, and it's certainly not reflective of lived reality. 'We've known for decades that sex and gender are far more complex than two boxes on a form. Intersex people exist. Trans and non-binary people exist. Cultures all over the world have recognised more than two genders for centuries, says De Beer-Procter. So, when anti-trans groups demand 'proof', what they're often doing is moving the goalposts. They dismiss rigorous studies for not being perfect. They discredit researchers for being too close to the communities they study. And they ignore the overwhelming consensus from major medical bodies around the world. Because what's actually being defended isn't science, it's a worldview. A belief that gender diversity is a deviation rather than a natural part of human variation, and one that fuels disinformation and fear across borders. DM
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
Malema urges DA to respect Ramaphosa and government protocol
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema has criticised the Democratic Alliance (DA) for issuing what he called 'unnecessary threats' after the party gave President Cyril Ramaphosa an ultimatum over the dismissal of Andrew Whitfield. The DA demanded that Ramaphosa reverse Whitfield's removal as Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry. President Cyril Ramaphosa fired Whitfield for travelling to the United States without obtaining his permission. The DA labelled the move hypocritical, pointing to Ramaphosa's failure to act against ANC ministers accused of corruption. SABC News reported that Malema called on the DA to respect the president and government processes. He stated that, 'They've no reason to complain. They went into a marriage knowing very well that they were going with the ANC-corrupt government into a marriage. These are unnecessary threats.' He said the DA had compromised its principles by joining a government led by the ANC. Malema said, 'If the DA was anti-corruption, the DA was pro-poor, the DA was to ensure that they would restore the dignity of our people, they should have allowed the ANC to govern as a minority party. Nothing was forcing them to go into government.' He added that by joining the ANC-led government, the DA had lost the moral ground to oppose it from within. 'You cannot oppose the government you are part of,' Malema said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
