JOHN DLUDLU: Rescuing the national dialogue

The national dialogue was always going to be a tough, tortuous exercise to pull off in a country as divided as SA. Still, it shouldn’t be left to die like the ill-fated social compact. 

Since the controversial inaugural convention a month ago public talk of the dialogue has hit a hiatus. But behind the scenes work is continuing apace and considerable progress is being made. 

Unwisely, the government decided to press ahead with the convention despite sensible calls by the legacy foundations of prominent South Africans like FW de Klerk, Thabo Mbeki, Desmond and Leah Tutu, Steve Biko and Albert Luthuli — for the convention to be postponed by a month. 

This difference of opinion led to the foundations — initiators of the idea — to boycott its launch convention. Political parties, including the DA, the second largest party in SA, and others, also stayed away from the launch event. If this doesn’t change, the dialogue will become a fireside chat among like-minded, mostly black, people. 

The foundations have been vindicated in their reservations. The country was, and remains, not ready for this all-important dialogue about its nationhood and the challenges facing it.

For example, the National Economic Development & Labour Council (Nedlac) — the statutory body for consultation on socioeconomic policy and legislative matters — is well-run these days, but remains badly funded. 

It is doubtful that with its business-as-usual agenda Nedlac can credibly organise the dialogue as well. This month it advertised for positions of project lead and project co-ordinator to assist with the dialogue. This is a clear recognition of its capacity constraints.

Following this protracted recruitment process will likely snarl things up. Logistics are but one of a myriad odds stacked against the dialogue. Getting hundreds of vetted delegates to be bussed to attend a function at a single venue is easier than rolling out these dialogues across the 257 localities. Even the public hearings on land expropriation without compensation failed to cover communities in the hinterland. 

Ensuring that this is a national dialogue — not one of few English-speaking elites — will cost serious money. A budget hasn’t been agreed; there are many aspirational estimates. These have become a source of controversy, and a club for its critics. 

The dialogue has become a victim of other priorities. The government’s main priority this year is hosting a successful G20 summit. Much of the resources — financial and nonfinancial — have gone into this effort. Business, which is organising the B20, has followed suit.

In addition, in the past three years business has had to cough up millions to support programmes in the business-government partnership to resolve multiple crises of energy, crime and corruption and freight logistics.   

This focus on these two issues has starved other causes of financial and nonfinancial support. The dialogue, coinciding with the B20/G20, will suffer. Pausing it until after the G20 sounds like a good idea. However, this is provided that participants commit to not using it as a political football ahead of next year’s local government elections. 

In a country cursed with political immaturity and short-termism this is unlikely to happen. Over and above the aforementioned challenges, the biggest hurdle faced by the dialogue is lack of common vision about what it’s supposed to achieve and, critically, the status of its findings and recommendations. 

Two contesting schools of thought are in play about the latter. One suggests that the government is elected and therefore ought to pick and choose what it implements from the dialogue’s recommendations. The other, supported by nongovernment actors such as civil society, argues that the government should implement all the recommendations from the dialogue. 

This is likely to be a source of friction. While commendable work remains ongoing, much still needs to be done. The legacy foundations, Nedlac and the eminent persons’ group deserve to be applauded. The latter has been pragmatic and mature in its approach, but it needs to keep daylight between it and government. 

The dialogue might be SA’s last hope. It needs to be rescued.    

• Dludlu, a former editor of Sowetan, is CEO of the Small Business Institute.