The government of national unity. Photo: @Presidency/ZA/X
The National Dialogue has not even begun and has already become irrevocably politically tainted — exactly the thing it was not supposed to be.
Democratic Alliance leader John Steenhuisen declared three weeks ago that his party would be withdrawing from the process after its deputy minister, Andrew Whitfield, was sacked while ANC corruption-accused ministers remained in their jobs. Those of an ANC inclination have flipped the allegation and said the DA is using the occasion for political point scoring.
Former president Thabo Mbeki added his voice to the mêlée in an open letter to Steenhuisen. He subtly reminded everyone that it was he who first put forward the idea of a dialogue early last year.
President Cyril Ramaphosa, meanwhile, is insistent that the event will not — contrary to common scepticism — be a talkshop and will benefit the ordinary person.
Of course, the ordinary person has come to despise the political wrangling that has characterised South Africa’s public space. The wrangling that has threatened the government of national unity time and again over the last year. Exactly the type of wrangling that we’re now watching.
It’s difficult to trace the genesis of the idea of a “national dialogue”. It’s not one that belongs to Mbeki or Ramaphosa. Or anybody else.
The theme of dialogue is a common one in the country and is writ large in our history. The conferences and conversations that took place in and around the dying days of apartheid were a prerequisite to the democracy we enjoy today.
Such is the hatred in our past that the South African project cannot exist on an unspoken social contract. It’s an ideal we all have to explicitly buy into.
As the rapidly declining election turnout figures tell us, the bickering political world is floating away and is no longer tethered to the realities that the rest of us face. That is why sentiments for a “national dialogue” have been simmering and murmured with increasing vigour over the last decade — long before any politician verbalised them.
Even setting aside the purported gargantuan cost (another matter entirely), how can we take as legitimate a series of conversations that will invariably not represent all national interests and between people who are clearly not capable of civil dialogue?
The irony will not be lost on most South Africans. They are desperate for a national dialogue of some form, but the platform they are now offered is being undermined by the very people who have necessitated it.