Latest news with #NEDLAC
IOL News
6 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
National Dialogue: A R700 Million Smokescreen for Political Survival?
In a country increasingly characterised by the symptoms of a failing state, democratic erosion, economic dysfunction, and deepening public disillusionment, President Cyril Ramaphosa's renewed call for a National Dialogue demands urgent and critical scrutiny, says the writer. Image: IOL / Ron AI Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The notion of a National Dialogue is not new in South Africa's post-apartheid political discourse. It has featured under successive administrations, particularly during the Mbeki and Zuma eras. What distinguishes this moment is that Ramaphosa has formally articulated the dialogue as a key initiative of the 7th Administration. His announcement on 10 June 2025 framed the dialogue as a renewed commitment to inclusive engagement that would contribute to Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan. The dialogue is pitched as a phased and participatory process, beginning with local consultations and culminating in two national conventions. Its coordination includes an Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Deputy President, a Steering Committee of sectoral leaders, and a Secretariat based at NEDLAC. Yet the structure, while appearing inclusive, masks top-down control and leaves open questions of oversight, transparency, and independence. In a country increasingly characterised by the symptoms of a failing state, democratic erosion, economic dysfunction, and deepening public disillusionment, President Cyril Ramaphosa's renewed call for a National Dialogue demands urgent and critical scrutiny. Marketed as a nation-building initiative rooted in inclusivity and moral renewal, this dialogue, backed by an anticipated and staggering R700 million budget, emerges not as a bold new chapter in South Africa's democratic project, but rather as a strategic, and arguably self-serving, manoeuvre by a presidency mired in crisis. While dialogue is undeniably a vital tool in healing fractured societies and fostering inclusive democratic participation, its potency is dangerously undermined when it is co-opted as a smokescreen for political self-preservation. When those leading the call for national dialogue are themselves implicated in the very crises they purport to resolve, the process risks devolving into a performance of consultation rather than a pursuit of justice. Dialogue, in such cases, becomes not a space for truth-telling and collective agency, but a carefully choreographed theatre of deflection, where accountability is diluted and systemic rot is masked behind the language of renewal. The true tragedy lies in the erosion of public trust, as citizens grow weary of being summoned to a conversation that merely serves to sanitise the image of leadership while the root causes of disillusionment, corruption, inequality, unaccountability, and unkept promises remain unaddressed. Thus, the problem is not with dialogue itself, but with its manipulation into a tool of political survival rather than societal transformation. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ Far from embodying the spirit of genuine public engagement, the dialogue appears to function as a symbolic performance, carefully choreographed to legitimise the controversial 'Government of National Unity' (GNU), a grand political coalition of convenience, while shielding the President from meaningful accountability. At a time when South Africa is reeling from extraordinarily high unemployment rates, billions in unaccounted-for COVID-19 relief funds, unmet anti-corruption promises despite over R1 billion spent on the State Capture Commission, and the persistent stain of record-breaking inequality, this repackaging of elite consensus under the guise of public consultation serves less as a moment of national renewal and more as a mask for political inertia and stagnation. President Ramaphosa has repeatedly evaded accountability, from the courts' sealing of the funders of his CR17 campaign to his choreographed evasion of prosecution over the Phala Phala scandal, and his murky ties to Glencore, a multinational corporation convicted of corruption. Unfortunately, Ramaphosa remains suspended in a legitimacy crisis, presiding over a nation that no longer trusts its institutions or the moral authority of its leadership. We warrant interrogating the motives, structure and implications of Ramaphosa's National Dialogue, exposing it as a costly exercise in obfuscation, elite preservation, and democratic deferral. The invocation of historical continuity with earlier dialogues like CODESA and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, both often uncritically celebrated, attempts to root the initiative in national tradition. However, such parallels are romanticised and deeply misleading. Past dialogues often resulted in elite pacts that deferred economic transformation and marginalised grassroots voices. Without addressing the exclusions of these earlier processes, the call for continuity becomes performative nostalgia. Ramaphosa's emphasis on national unity comes amid systemic crises: poverty, inequality, crime, corruption, and alarming unemployment. Yet appeals to unity can obscure the state's role in perpetuating these crises. Genuine unity must emerge from structural change, not rhetorical overtures. If the dialogue becomes a mechanism to pacify dissent or dilute public anger, it risks deepening disillusionment rather than healing it. The R700 million allocated to this process is both ethically and economically indefensible. In a country grappling with failing public services, mass unemployment, and chronic inequality, such a sum represents misplaced priorities. It also raises the spectre of procurement abuse and elite enrichment through politically connected consultancies. The dialogue risks being perceived as a procurement bonanza masquerading as a civic renewal. Volunteerism, not financial excess, should underpin participatory democracy. If civil society, faith-based organisations, and community leaders are expected to engage, their participation should stem from moral commitment, not monetary incentives. The budget undermines the ethos of civic mobilisation and reinforces the perception of a state addicted to performative governance. The proposed group of eminent persons, intended to steer the process, raises concerns about legitimacy and representativeness. Too often, such groups are curated to exclude dissenting voices and elevate those aligned with the President. This risks turning the eminent person group into a curated echo chamber rather than a forum for critical engagement. Without accountability mechanisms, it becomes a technocratic buffer shielding the state from scrutiny. The promise of delivering a shared national vision and a social compact is fraught with contradictions. South Africa's political and economic fractures cannot be papered over with aspirational language. Without addressing systemic inequalities and redistributing power, the compact risks becoming an exercise in the lowest-common-denominator consensus that prioritises stability over justice. Claims that the dialogue will inform Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan must be treated with caution. South Africa suffers not from a lack of policy frameworks but from weak enforcement, lack of political will, and institutional incoherence. Without binding mechanisms for implementation and monitoring, the dialogue's outcomes may simply gather dust. Stakeholder buy-in is frequently cited, yet seldom interrogated. Who are these stakeholders, and how are they selected? If civil society is co-opted into legitimising predetermined agendas, or if critical voices are excluded, then buy-in becomes a euphemism for top-down control. The dialogue's legitimacy depends on its ability to disrupt, not entrench, existing power structures. Unity, as presented, appears more as political camouflage than a genuine commitment. The dialogue provides a convenient narrative cover for the 7th Administration's 'Government of National Unity', a grand coalition that serves political elites rather than the public. In doing so, it risks silencing dissent, stabilising elite bargains, and consolidating Ramaphosa's tenuous grip on power to ensure the fate of recalling his predecessors [ Mbeki and Zuma] suffered is avoided. Why now? The timing coincides not with a sudden eruption of national crisis, these crises are long-standing, but with Ramaphosa's need to paper over his direct failure of leadership. The dialogue deflects from the state's failures and attempts to reposition the President as a unifier rather than a figure presiding over institutional decay. Calls to shape a common ethos or build national direction ring hollow in a context of widespread mistrust. Unity without justice is pacification; participation without accountability is tokenism. The risk is that the process becomes another technocratic ritual, managed from above, and disconnected from the needs and aspirations of the people. The proposed National Dialogue, far from being a platform for transformation, emerges as a shield for political stagnation. It reflects a government increasingly reliant on symbolic politics, bureaucratic rituals, and costly consultations to mask the absence of structural reform. Until South Africa's leadership demonstrates genuine accountability, moral courage, and ethical governance, no amount of dialogue—however lavishly funded—can rescue the nation from its democratic malaise. What South Africa needs is not another elite-managed conversation, but a democratic reckoning, a redistribution of power, and a reimagining of governance rooted in justice, equity, and the dignity of all its people. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
From Dialogue to Reckoning: What South Africa Needs Now
Thirty years into South Africa's democracy, we must move beyond superficial dialogue to a reckoning that addresses deep-rooted inequalities and demands real change, writes Faiez Jacobs. Image: IOL / Ron AI 'The People Shall Govern.' Not as metaphor, not as sentiment. As a promise. And a demand. Thirty years into our democracy, South Africa does not need another listening tour, another facilitated workshop, or another high-level roundtable with branded lanyards. We need something deeper. Something braver. Something long overdue. We need a reckoning. The recent announcement by President Ramaphosa that South Africa will convene a National Dialogue, coordinated through NEDLAC and guided by an 'Eminent Persons Group', has stirred predictable fanfare and deep scepticism. It is not the idea of dialogue that alarms us. It is the fact that, for too long, dialogue has been deployed in South Africa not to deliver justice, but to delay it. In place of delivery, we have convened. In place of structural change, we have moderated. In place of urgency, we have performed unity. We have been here before. And we cannot afford to be here again. A country built on dialogue but rarely on equal terms From Kliptown in 1955 to CODESA in 1991, South Africa's path to democracy was shaped by dialogue. But these moments were not equal meetings of minds they were unequal negotiations between a people in struggle and a regime in retreat. We must never forget that our political transition was never designed to dismantle all systems of power. It was a ceasefire, not a complete transformation. The elite pact that underpinned our 1994 breakthrough brought democratic rights but postponed economic redress. Today, those delays have caught up with us. We are the world's most unequal society. Millions of black South Africans still live under conditions that echo the structural geography of apartheid. Youth unemployment hovers above 60%. Public services are failing. State capture hollowed our institutions. Violence, corruption, and despair creep into the marrow of daily life. And in this fragile, fractured context, we are now asked again to talk. But before we do, we must ask: Who is asking for this dialogue? Why now? What for? 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 Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Dialogue, or Deflection? Let us be honest. Much of the dialogue proposed today risks becoming elite-driven spectaclea performance of inclusivity without power-sharing. A repackaging of reconciliation in times of political turbulence. A soft cushion against the hard edges of growing public rage. This new National Dialogue comes with high-profile names, big halls, logos and language like 'shared vision' and 'renewed compact.' But language is not justice. Logos do not build clinics. And dialogue without delivery breaks trust. The danger is not in talking. The danger is in pretending that talk is enough. Our Constitution already provides for participatory democracy. Parliament's committees, ward committees, SGB's, CPF's, RDP forums, municipal IDPs, Chapter 9 institutions all of these exist to facilitate public voice and state responsiveness. If we are serious about rebuilding national consensus, why not invest in strengthening those platforms rather than creating new ones? The answer is clear: we don't have a participation problem we have a delivery problem. We don't lack dialogue. We lack action. The Real Dialogue Happening Outside Power While government convenes its forums, real dialogue happens daily in the silence of broken clinics. In the queues at SASSA. In the burnt tyres of protest. In the quiet rage of mothers burying sons lost to gang bullets or hunger. That is the unscripted, unmoderated, rawdialogue of a society crying for repair, real hope, real change. To those who say this dialogue is necessary for cohesion: let us be clear. Cohesion cannot be built on inequality. Reconciliation cannot be revived while restitution is denied. Real unity requires more than slogans it requires justice that is seen and felt. And to those who say this dialogue is about the future: we say this the future cannot be imagined until the past is confronted. Until the unfinished business of our transition is faced head-on. That business is redistribution. Dignity. Work. Land. Reform. From National Dialogue to National Reckoning What South Africa needs now is not a dialogue. It is a Reckoning. A National Reckoning Plan time-bound, costed, public, and accountable. Here is what it would look like: 1. Corruption Accountability • Dedicated anti-corruption court. • Public progress dashboard updated quarterly. • No dialogue required. Just prosecutions. 2. Public Service Restoration • Professionalise the civil service. • Forensic audits across departments. Get rid of deed wood. Merit and competence based deployment. • Treasury-approved clean-up plan. No slogans needed. 3. Violence and Safety Compact • Dedicated gender-based violence units in all provinces. • Resourced SAPS precincts in crime hotspots. • Community-policing forums with real authority. • Measurable 3-year targets to reduce violence by 70%. 4. Land and Housing • Release state-owned land for housing and smallholder farming. • Title deeds for informal settlements. • Geospatial planning with public oversight. • Justice, not just consultation. 5. Youth Jobs and Township Economies • R10 billion fund for township infrastructure and small enterprise support. • Remove licensing red tape for spaza shops and street traders. • Localise procurement in municipalities. • Youth opportunity desks in every ward. 6. A Real Platform for the People • Strengthen Parliament's portfolio committees as dialogue forums. • Fund civic education, SGBs, and ward committees. • Turn Parliament into the true arena of people's voice not hotels and ballrooms. Dialogue Must Not Substitute Delivery Dialogue is not inherently dangerous. But dialogue without consequence is corrosive. It drains hope. It teaches citizens that participation is performance. That their voices are heard, but never acted upon. That engagement is a dead-end. The greatest threat to democracy is not apathy. It is the experience of being listened to but ignored. This time, there will be no Mandela to hold us together when we fail. This time, failure will explode. Not into civil war, but into permanent distrust, institutional erosion, and a vacuum that extremists, secessionists, and seditionists are already preparing to fill. What Must Be Done This National Dialogue, must be grounded in three non-negotiables: 1. Equal Participation No one should be asked to "participate" unless they are also being resourced, empowered, and heard. Give logistical and financial support to informal workers, rural voices, and youth collectives. 2. Binding Outcomes Every agreement must be costed, time-bound, and linked to implementation agents. We need deliverables, we need accountability, we need delivery, not declarations and leaders who are not only shocked and surprised. 3. Institutional Anchoring The dialogue must be tied into Parliament and the Executives and all levels, not orbitaround and away from it. All outcomes must flow into keeping elected leaders accountable from the top, our President, Ministers, Premiers, MEC's, Mayors, MMC's to councillors via committee work, legislative reform, and budget planning. Let's make Performance Management work and delivery real. The Real Dialogue is in Delivery Dialogue is not neutral. It either reinforces power or redistributes it. South Africans don't need to be heard again. They need to be answered. The ANC must not lead from caution or convenience. We must lead from courage. From conviction. And from truth. The promise of 1994 has been deferred too long. Now is the time to deliver on it not through words, but through work. Let us move from dialogue to reckoning. From performance to policy. From symbolism to substance. Let this be the generation that made justice real. Let this be the moment that reclaimed delivery as democracy. * Faiez Jacobs is a former Member of Parliament, political organiser, and strategic facilitator committed to inclusive governance, ethical leadership, and the renewal of South Africa's democratic promise. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. IOL Opinion
Zawya
20-06-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Employment and Labour Committee Welcomes Presentations on 2025-2030 Strategic Plans for Department and Entities
The Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour has welcomed presentations on the 2025-2030 strategic plans, 2025/26 annual performance plans and budget estimates of the Department of Employment and Labour, Supported Employment Enterprises (SEE), Productivity South Africa (PSA), the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC). The committee is of the view that more resources are needed to adequately fund the department and its entities. More resources are needed to increase the department's inspection and enforcement capacity, to fund SEE's procurement initiatives and the employment of persons living with disabilities in line with United Nations' conventions, to address the CCMA's case backlog, and to fund NEDLAC's mandate of facilitating national dialogue, among other things. The Chairperson of the committee, Mr Boyce Maneli, said that the contribution of SEE, CCMA and NEDLAC to the country's economic growth cannot be overstated. 'An inclusive growth of the economy requires that there be a harmonious work environment, and the CCMA is best placed as an arbiter. Greater participation of everyone in the economy [is also required], including persons living with disabilities, and SEE is best placed to facilitate that aspect; and continuous facilitation of national dialogue, which is a mandate of NEDLAC,' said Mr Maneli. To this end, the committee has called on the department to provide in writing the various creative measures that will be implemented to cover budget shortfalls. Mr Maneli said that while legislative review may be needed to motivate budget increases for some aspects, the committee will work within the current legislative framework around budget process to get possible increases through the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters process in future financial years. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
Eyewitness News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
SA's National Dialogue boasts a task team to steer public engagements
JOHANNESBURG - A task team has been appointed to lead preparations for the upcoming National Dialogue. This week, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that the dialogue, which will include public engagement sessions, will take place on 15 August 2025. The preparatory task team held a media briefing in Johannesburg on Friday to outline the planning. ALSO READ: The team responsible for preparing the national dialogue includes representatives from the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), The Presidency, and various national foundations. It is chaired by Nkosinathi Biko, executive trustee of the Steve Biko Foundation, with Lindiwe Gadd from the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation serving as deputy chair. Biko says alongside the national convention scheduled for August, public engagements remain the most crucial aspect of the National Dialogue. "The first national convention shall be a gathering of representatives of the broadest range of South Africans, whose task is to set a broad agenda and fine-tune processes of the public engagements." The ultimate goal is to develop a 30-year action plan through this dialogue that will guide South Africa onto the right path.
The South African
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The South African
South Africa's National Dialogue: A call for unity
President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced a National Convention to start a national dialogue involving the entire country. The initiative's goal is to bring people from all walks of life together to fight crime, unemployment, inequality, and division, thereby improving everyone's future. President Cyril Ramaphosa said that dialogue has always been the key to South Africa's change. He discussed how unity and negotiation ended apartheid and built democracy. Ramaphosa described the National Dialogue as a process of national consolidation and progress. Ramaphosa stated that a second National Convention will be held early next year. This convention will establish the duties of the government, businesses, communities, and civil society. There will be an Eminent Persons Group in charge of the process. This group will include well-known people like Judge Edwin Cameron, Dr Brigalia Bam, Siya Kolisi, and many more. The National Dialogue will operate under a three-tiered governance model. An inter-ministerial committee led by Deputy President Paul Mashatile on government involvement. A Steering Committee made up of people from the business, political, labour, cultural, and civil society sectors will set strategic priorities. The secretariat at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) will provide operational support by managing daily activities and making sure that the dialogue continues smoothly through all of its stages. President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue: A staged process that starts at the local level and ends with national unity Ramaphosa said that the next step in the National Development Plan will be based on this process. He ended by calling for unity: 'We are drawing on our traditions of talking and arguing.' Critics view President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue as a political smokescreen hiding South Africa's diplomatic challenges with strategic allies and the government's growing problems leading to a coalition after the ANC's poor election results. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
