Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future

IOL News

a day ago

Former President Thabo Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future.
Image: File
Former President Thabo Mbeki's open letter to Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen, published this week, is more than just a scathing rebuke- it's a timely reminder of the moral and political imperative for inclusive national dialogue.
Mbeki, in his characteristically dense but principled tone, offers not just criticism but a clarion call: South Africa's future depends on collaborative governance, not cynical obstruction. In this, he is right. The DA's withdrawal from the national dialogue process is not only shortsighted, it is irresponsible.
The central premise of Mbeki's 11-page letter is clear: South Africa's political parties, having agreed to form a Government of National Unity (GNU), have a shared duty to engage honestly in the national dialogue envisioned by that agreement. By walking away from this process, the DA appears to be choosing political point-scoring over the needs of the people.
Mbeki accuses Steenhuisen and DA federal chair Helen Zille of 'arrogance,' and while that language may sting, it is far from unwarranted. Let's begin with the facts. The DA entered into the GNU following the 2024 general election, which produced no outright majority. A statement of intent signed by GNU partners explicitly commits them to a national dialogue aimed at building consensus on the country's direction.
Yet, after President Cyril Ramaphosa removed DA MP Andrew Whitfield from his deputy ministerial position, the DA abruptly withdrew from the dialogue process. That decision, Mbeki points out, is not just a reaction to personnel changes; it signals more profound discomfort with meaningful public engagement. What is most troubling is the DA's claim that the national dialogue is nothing more than an ANC election strategy. Zille reportedly dismissed the process as a political ruse, calling it a 'sham' and 'a hollow exercise.'
Mbeki responds with a sharp but essential rebuttal: if the DA truly believes that the people of South Africa cannot engage in shaping their future without DA participation, then that position is not only arrogant but fundamentally anti-democratic. Mbeki is correct in asserting that the national dialogue has broader roots than the ANC or any one party. He traces its origins to a 2016 agreement between several respected foundations, including those of FW de Klerk, Desmond Tutu, Kgalema Motlanthe, and Helen Suzman. These institutions, with diverse political legacies, united to form the National Foundations Dialogue Initiative. Their goal is to rebuild public trust through a participatory process grounded in shared values. That the current dialogue structure has been endorsed by these foundations and facilitated in part by volunteers only reinforces its legitimacy.
The DA's departure from this effort suggests a refusal to engage with South Africans beyond its voter base. Worse still, its pledge to 'mobilise against' the process raises the spectre of political sabotage. One can disagree with aspects of a national dialogue without rejecting its entire premise. To actively campaign against a participatory process, one endorsed by civil society, foundations, and the Presidency—is to subvert the GNU's stated mission.
It is worth noting that Mbeki, despite his past differences with Ramaphosa and the ANC's current leadership, has taken a principled stance in favour of inclusive governance. His letter does not read as blind loyalty to the ANC; rather, it reflects a belief in a political culture founded on dialogue, accountability, and public service. His criticism of Zille's comments about the so-called 'sham' nature of the dialogue reveals a concern for the people who are too often left out of the national conversation, citizens who feel powerless and unheard.
Indeed, one of Mbeki's most powerful lines reminds us that 'the people are our country's sovereign authority.' Any party that claims to represent the people must take that seriously. Political leadership requires humility—the willingness to listen even when the process is uncomfortable or imperfect. By withdrawing, the DA risks aligning itself with a politics of exclusion. That is not what the moment demands.
There are legitimate questions to ask about the structure, transparency, and goals of the national dialogue. But those questions are best answered from within the process, not from the sidelines. By choosing to engage, the DA could influence the outcomes and ensure accountability. Instead, its decision to walk away hands that power to others and betrays its own stated commitment to democratic engagement.