How apartheid nostalgia betrays South Africa's unfinished liberation
Image: Karen Singh/Screengrab
THE narrative that dominates discussions of South Africa's post-apartheid journey often converges on a single, critical point: the perceived failure of the ANC to deliver on its grand promises.
This critique, amplified by commentators like Prince Mashele, frequently contrasts the present with a romanticised past, suggesting an era of pristine infrastructure and efficient governance under apartheid. But this flawed comparison does more than obscure the truth—it actively distorts it.
In a widely circulated interview on the SMWX podcast, Mashele claimed that under apartheid, 'there were no potholes on tar roads,' and that traffic lights always 'worked.' He continued, asserting that infrastructural decay, non-functional robots and crumbling roads, is uniquely 'an ANC thing.'
This dangerously reductive view demonstrates selective amnesia. It is not merely a critique of governance, but a subtle sanitisation of apartheid's spatial and racial architecture.
Undeniably, Mahmood Mamdani's analysis in Neither Settler nor Native illuminates why apartheid's geography persists under ANC rule. Mashele's statements reflect what Frantz Fanon called the 'Manichaean world' of the colonial order, where two towns existed: one of order and excess, and the other of filth and want.
The black township continued to be 'a place of ill fame, peopled by men of ill repute.' The apartheid state maintained clean roads and working traffic lights in white areas not as a national standard, but as a function of racial privilege and spatial control.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
What Mashele conveniently ignores is that infrastructure under apartheid was race-coded. Paved roads, water services, and electricity were concentrated in white suburbs, while black townships and rural areas were systematically underdeveloped.
In my own experience, growing up and living in places like Ntabamhlophe (western KwaZulu-Natal) or Ngobi (North West), traffic lights were non-existent—and still are, three decades into democratic rule under the ANC. These areas were not marginalised by accident but were designed to be so. Their underdevelopment was deliberate and institutionalised.
To recall apartheid's so-called efficiency without context is to ignore its structural violence. Mashele's nostalgia constructs a binary: ANC equals decay; apartheid equals order. This formulation is historically inaccurate and morally indefensible. It is akin to praising the punctuality of trains under fascist regimes while ignoring the concentration camps they served. As Walter Rodney warned, colonial systems did not merely 'fail' to develop Africa, they underdeveloped it by design. Apartheid was no different.
Mashele's technological nostalgia exemplifies what Jacob Dlamini identifies as 'restorative nostalgia', a desire to recover a mythical past cleansed of its oppressive foundations. This mode of nostalgia sanitises apartheid's brutality by fixating on its superficial order. In contrast, Dlamini's notion of 'reflective nostalgia' offers a more honest reckoning: a mourning of apartheid-era community networks or certainties that were fractured not by freedom itself, but by democracy's failure to fulfil its emancipatory promise.
Therefore, true memory must confront, not conceal, the violence that underwrote apartheid's oppressive order.
Mamdani's concept of 'decentralised despotism' in colonial governance is particularly instructive here. The apartheid state was a textbook case of bifurcated rule, where civil rights and services were afforded to whites.
Meanwhile, black South Africans were governed through tribal authorities and customary law in the Bantustans. Infrastructure was not neutral but was weaponised to entrench spatial exclusion. This remains evident today, where apartheid's geography persists under a different political dispensation.
To compare the pothole-free roads of white Pretoria in the 1980s to ANC-run municipalities in Limpopo today, without examining these spatial legacies, is disingenuous. The real question Mashele should be asking is why the ANC has failed to transform places like Ngobi, not why Sandton looks better maintained. What Mashele should be saying is that the ANC has not changed much in these places, because it inherited and perpetuated apartheid's geography.
Indeed, the ANC has betrayed many of its foundational promises. Its 1994 Ready to Govern manifesto envisioned one million homes, 2.5 million electrified households, and a comprehensive public works programme to redress historical inequality.
Instead, the neoliberal turn, engineered in part with the guidance of apartheid-era finance figures like Derek Keys and 'new' South Africa economic policy czars (Trevor Manuel, Thabo Mbeki, and Tito Mboweni), saw the abandonment of redistributive infrastructure plans in favour of market-led growth. This ideological surrender created the vacuum now filled by elite corruption and administrative collapse.
Auditor-General reports confirm the rot: only three of 35 national departments received clean audits in recent years. Provinces like Limpopo have required constitutional interventions due to a total failure in service delivery. In this context, Mashele's outrage is justified. But to project this dysfunction onto a narrative that vindicates apartheid's design is intellectually dishonest.
Fanon, in Black Skin, White Masks, explains this internalisation of colonial values as part of a broader inferiority complex. The formerly oppressed, he warns, may begin to admire the coloniser's systems, not because they were just, but because they were stable. Mashele's obsession with working traffic lights is a symptom of this pathology, a longing for colonial order dressed as political critique. This is not speaking truth to power, but speaking comfort to whiteness.
The rise of self-proclaimed political analysts who gain traction through unchecked criticism of the ANC is not unexpected. It is part of South Africa's vibrant democratic culture. Such voices are indispensable. But they must be rooted in historical truth. As Edward Said argued in Representations of the Intellectual, the true public intellectual must interrogate power without becoming its tool. In contrast, Mashele's commentary risks becoming a performance of analysis, divorced from the very people it purports to represent.
The danger lies not in criticism of the ANC, that is both necessary and overdue, but in what is lost when such critique adopts the language and assumptions of apartheid's defenders. Mashele's claim that the ANC 'broke the robots' implies that apartheid had a universal standard of governance. It did not. It had a racially exclusive logic. If the robots worked in town, it is because they were not meant to work in Seshego or Ntabankulu.
Who, then, does Mashele speak for? Not the residents of Ntabamhlophe or Mogwase, who still wait for paved roads and functioning clinics. Not the youth of Nkowankowa, who must walk kilometres for access to water or schooling. He speaks not from the margins, but from a middle-class, or 'Grand Estate', vantage point that measures progress in suburban conveniences, rather than in structural transformation.
Mashele's comments also obscure the ANC's complicity in failing to reverse apartheid's spatial logic. Post-1994 housing developments were often built on peripheral land, perpetuating apartheid's spatial exclusions. As urban scholar Neil Klug notes, these areas were poorly serviced and isolated, replicating the 40-40-40 rule: 40 km from the city, 40-square-metre homes, requiring 40% of income for commuting. This is not liberation but stagnation under new management.
Patrick Bond's analyses of post-apartheid neoliberalism highlight how state-led, investor-friendly policies replaced development. The result: infrastructure for the elite, neglect for the majority. While 4.7 million 'housing opportunities' were created, 2.4 million families remain without homes. The state has effectively become a site of accumulation for a political class, rather than a vehicle for redistribution.
Fanon warned that a national bourgeoisie that mimics colonial forms without dismantling them will eventually become 'the transmission belt between the nation and international capital.' This prophecy now defines the ANC's trajectory. However, even as we confront this reality, we must not let nostalgia obscure the past. 'There were no potholes' is not an argument but a mirage. Infrastructure that excludes cannot be glorified simply because it functioned for some.
South Africa's future demands a radical reorientation. Mamdani speaks of the need to 'unmake permanent minorities' — to reverse spatial, economic, and legal segregation through systemic reform. That means reparative urban planning, land reform, and dignified service delivery — not superficial comparisons between the towns that excluded us and the municipalities that now ignore us. It means remembering that functioning infrastructure for the few is not a standard, but a sign of inequality.
Again, the freedom the black majority wants is not material excess or socioeconomic rights alone, but more. Liberation is not measured by traffic lights alone, but by dignity, equity, and memory. The robots in white suburbs worked because the state ensured they would, at the expense of the black majority's humanity. To forget that is to betray those still waiting for the freedom promised at dusty crossroads where robots never gleamed.
Potholes are real, but so is the history that built them—and the future we owe to those still left behind.
Siyayibanga le economy!
* Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters.
** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]


Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
NMB council's ANC caucus accused of misconduct after walkout to avoid city manager discussion
The Democratic Alliance has asked the speaker of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro council to take action against members of the ANC caucus who left a city council meeting on Thursday, collapsing an urgent discussion on the fate of the suspended city manager. The Democratic Alliance has urged the speaker of the Nelson Mandela Bay City Council, Eugene Johnson, to take disciplinary steps against the members of the ANC caucus who walked out of an official council meeting. On Thursday, ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom, seconded by the DA's Rano Kayser, proposed a motion that a legal opinion – which concluded that disciplinary action against suspended city manager Dr Noxolo Nqwazi should be abandoned as the charges could not be sustained – should be tabled before council. This video of the walkout was recorded by ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom Both Grootboom and Kayser insist that the motion passed and that what followed was a walkout of the ANC caucus, led by Executive Mayor Babalwa Lobishe, that collapsed the city council meeting. Lobishe did not hold her usual post-council press conference, but instead posted a statement to residents, not to the media, stating that the motion had not passed. She did not respond to further questions. This is the second time in a week that Lobishe has exited a council meeting without dealing with the issue of the suspended city manager. Last week, she arrived late for a council meeting, announced that reports 'were not ready' and adjourned the meeting – at a cost of around R25,000 to ratepayers. Nelson Mandela Bay Deputy Mayor Gary van Niekerk said on Thursday night that 'she didn't have the votes'. He, too, said the motion had passed. 'The meeting was adjourned. The members of the ANC left. The speaker then called them back,' he said. 'But most of them had already left. So when the ACDP's motion was put to a vote, we (the coalition government to which Van Niekerk belongs) didn't have the numbers,' he said. Disciplinary action DA councillor Morne Steyn wrote to Johnson on Friday, asking her to investigate and institute disciplinary proceedings against the councillors who had left the meeting 'unlawfully and illegally' and to refer the matter to the rules and ethics committee. According to the video recording of the meeting, it had not adjourned, but went into a closed meeting, so it remains unclear why the ANC caucus left. In his letter, Steyn quoted from a 2015 ruling by the Constitutional Court that it was unlawful for councillors to stop the work of a council when the 'political tides' were against them. In this ruling, the Constitutional Court said: 'Councillors are elected to undertake the work of the council on behalf of the whole citizenry. Sometimes the tides of politics will place one party in the majority and sometimes another. 'But it remains the duty of all councillors to facilitate and not obstruct the workings of the council. For councillors to continue to draw their salaries, while refusing to attend meetings and seeking thereby to stultify the working of a council would be a breach of their obligations as councillors. It is a breach of the Code of Conduct that binds all councillors and obliges them to attend all meetings of the council and of committees of which they are members.' Steyn warned that if Johnson refused to act, the DA would approach the Eastern Cape MEC of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Zolile Williams, to intervene. 'The walkout staged by the members of the governing coalition in the meeting of 24 July raises grave concerns. Aside from the undemocratic actions of said individuals staging a walkout subsequent to a loss in the consideration of a motion, this action is legally [precluded],' Steyn wrote. He said that another ruling by the Gauteng Division of the High Court stated: '… the importance of serving in a municipal council is that party political affiliation and agendas are eschewed for the greater good of the communities served by those councils. … [E]very municipal councillor must comply with the constitutional injunction to municipalities, to prioritise the basic needs of local communities and to provide the basic minimum services to all members of such local communities.' Steyn said, 'These strong words of the [Gauteng] Judge President, together with the earlier strong remarks by the Constitutional Court, put to rest any debate about this issue. Walkouts are illegal. 'No matter how strongly a councillor disagrees with the proceedings in a meeting, there is no 'right to walk out', ' Steyn said. 'Councillors are expected (and paid) to attend council and committee meetings.' Walkout costs 'should be recovered' He said the wasted costs of the meeting should be recovered from the councillors involved. 'Such a walkout forces the municipality to convene another meeting. The municipality thus incurs fruitless and wasteful expenditure on a meeting that was entirely avoidable if everyone had simply obeyed the law. The municipal manager will be forced by law to recover these costs from the councillors [who] walked out and caused the meeting to collapse. 'The new powers of the Auditor-General have made this threat even more real than it was before. If the municipal manager does not make an effort to recover these costs from the councillors, the Auditor-General may come for the municipal manager and issue a certificate of debt to the municipal manager. 'So a diligent and careful municipal manager will not hesitate to recover the costs from the councillors, even if only to protect him or herself from individual liability. There could also be individual liability for the councillors who walked out,' Steyn said. Nqwazi's precautionary suspension Nqwazi was put on precautionary suspension in late 2023 and again in early 2024, pending disciplinary action which had been instituted against her. In his legal opinion, senior counsel Olav Ronaasen said he had been asked to advise on the viability of the disciplinary proceedings against Nqwazi and the status of the criminal proceedings against her to enable the council to reach an informed decision on whether it should persist with the disciplinary proceedings or withdraw them and continue to pursue a settlement with her, in terms of which her employment with the municipality would terminate. The National Treasury has refused to approve a departure which would allow a settlement to be paid, suggesting that the disciplinary proceedings should first be pursued to completion. But Ronaasen said in his analysis of the charges against Nqwazi, the disciplinary action was likely to fail as all the allegations against her neglected to take into account that she had been carrying out instructions from the city council. Lobishe has not responded to questions sent by Daily Maverick to her and the metro's director of communications. Despite weeks of pleas from business and civil society for improved service delivery and leadership stability, she has failed to explain her conduct on the city manager issue. The metro is facing a precarious time as tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump are set to come into operation on Friday. Nqwazi was arrested by the Hawks in September 2022, along with the metro's former human settlements director Norman Mapu, businessman Xolani Masela, his spouse Nwabisa, former Democratic Alliance councillors Trevor Louw, Neville Higgins and Victor Manyathi, and Nelson Mandela Bay ANC secretary Luyolo Nqakula. They face charges of corruption, money laundering, fraud and contravening the Municipal Finance Management Act. It is alleged that kickbacks for a toilet tender awarded during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic were used to reward Louw, Higgins and Manyathi for voting for a motion of no confidence against former DA mayor Athol Trollip. However, an application is pending for Nqwazi to be discharged after the close of the State's case, with her legal team arguing that the State had failed to lead any evidence against her. DM


Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue will be meaningless without honest leaders, warns Mbeki
The National Dialogue, which will be held in three weeks, aims to foster national unity and develop shared solutions to South Africa's pressing challenges. As South Africa prepares for the National Dialogue, with an estimated price tag of R700-million, former President Thabo Mbeki warned that without capable leadership, the process risked being meaningless. 'What will come out of that National Dialogue will need honest, capable hands with integrity to implement what people have said,' said Mbeki. He was giving a keynote address at UDM leader Bantu Holomisa's 70th birthday celebration in Sandton, Johannesburg, on Saturday night. In recent years, Mbeki has been critical of the ANC, speaking about what he refers to as a decline in ethical leadership and the growing problem of corruption in the party. On Saturday, however, he toned the criticism down, saying that although he had views about ANC leaders, he was not free to mention them by name. He admitted that he, too, was part of the broader problem and anticipated that this would come up during the dialogue. 'They [South Africans] will say uncomfortable truths about us. 'You were President, and look what a mess you have created in the country.' And this is therefore what needs to be done in order to respect the people and implement what they have discussed: you need a particular kind of leader. I am not free to talk about our leaders by name.' The National Dialogue aims to foster national unity and develop shared solutions to South Africa's pressing challenges, including failing public services, high unemployment, rising crime, corruption, food inflation and economic stagnation. It starts with a National Convention on 15 August, which will set the agenda for the broader dialogue. The dialogue has been widely criticised by political parties and ordinary citizens, some of whom have argued that these are not just topics for debate but their daily realities. They want a concrete plan to lead the country out of crisis. One of the the parties that has rejected the National Dialogue is the EFF. Addressing President Cyril Ramaphosa in Parliament two weeks ago, the party's Nontando Nolutshungu said it was not the people of South Africa who had wrecked state-owned enterprises, failed to create jobs and allowed drugs to destroy young people. She pointed to the ANC's performance in the 2024 elections. 'The people have spoken, and you don't need R700-million to repeat the message they gave you at the ballots in 2024,' said Nolutshungu. The uMkhonto Wesizwe party's John Hlophe said the ANC sought to use the National Dialogue as part of its election campaign ahead of the 2026 local government polls. 'Let me tell the people of South Africa what it really is: it is not a dialogue for them, it is an ANC election campaign funded by taxpayers' money. 'Mr Ramaphosa, you lead a broken ANC: a party with the lowest membership in decades, a party that has lost key metros, a party that has become a mere shadow of its once proud self. Branches are non-existent, communities are leaderless, and the people have lost faith,' said Hlophe. Last month, the leader of the DA, John Steenhuisen, announced that his party had withdrawn its support for the National Dialogue, citing Ramaphosa's failure to act against officials accused of corruption, some of whom were members of the Cabinet. 'It is clear that this dialogue will be nothing more than a waste of time and money to distract from the ANC's failures. This explains why President Ramaphosa and the ANC are so obsessed with it,' said Steenhuisen. 'It is an electioneering ploy, at taxpayer expense, to gloss over the serious crises that the ANC has plunged South Africa into. The dialogue also has no constitutional standing whatsoever to take or impose decisions.' Responding to the criticism, Ramaphosa said people must ask themselves: 'Do we want to break or do we want to rebuild?' The National Dialogue will be led by the Eminent Persons Group, made up of 31 prominent South Africans, including business leaders, former MPs, academics, athletes, actors, and traditional and spiritual leaders. Some of those in the group are Springbok captain Siya Kolisi, Miss South Africa 2024 Mia le Roux, the leader of the Zion Christian Church, Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane, and the award-winning actor John Kani. Mbeki wants the dialogue to be a 'genuine' one. 'Let the people get together and say this is the South Africa we want,' he said. DM