President Cyril Ramaphosa.Photo: @CyrilRamaphosa/X
President Cyril Ramaphosa put a brave face on Friday to legacy foundations and opposition parties boycotting a convention to kick off a National Dialogue on how to resolve South Africa’s numerous problems, saying similar walkouts had occurred during the difficult transition to democracy.
“We are embarking on a process that will launch a million conversations. Across the length and breadth of South Africa, people will — and must — meet to talk about what worries them, what gives them hope and how they think their lives and our country can be better,” Ramaphosa told delegates at the convention’s opening ceremony.
He defended the National Dialogue, which critics say has lost credibility after foundations promoting the legacies of Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, FW de Klerk, Robert Sobukwe and Desmond and Leah Tutu disagreed with the preparatory task team and pulled out from Friday’s convention, calling the process exclusive and government top-heavy.
Ramaphosa argued that the dialogue was the only tent to host legitimate people-centred conversations.
The president first publicly mooted the idea of a national dialogue at his inauguration last year, after the general elections in which his ANC lost its national parliamentary majority, forcing it into a 10-party coalition.
In July, National Dialogue steering committee chairperson Nkosinathi Biko rejected criticism that the initiative was a money and time-wasting talk-shop, saying the “society-wide” and “citizen-led” process from August 2025 to March 2026 would result in a national compact and plan of action to jumpstart the stuttering economy.
The DA indicated in late June that it was boycotting the dialogue. Freedom Front Plus and ActionSA also pulled out.
Trade union federation Cosatu and the civil society caucus have supported the dialogue, stating they will push for accountability and transparency from within.
Speaking at the convention on Friday, Ramaphosa said participants would have “difficult conversations” about questions such as: Why do South African women have to live in fear of men? Why do so many people live in abject poverty while so few live lives of opulence?
“Through this process we want our people to meet in homes and community halls. We want them to meet in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Our people must meet in schools and lecture halls, in boardrooms and on the shop floor, on the pathways of our villages and the streets of our townships and cities,” he said
“We will meet online. We will call into radio stations. We will debate on television. We will share our views and make our suggestions without hesitation. We will be direct and honest.”
He noted that the dialogue was taking place during a time of economic hardship, unemployment, inequality, growing poverty and a “crisis of confidence” in institutions and when the world “is rapidly changing and our ability to adapt and renew ourselves will define the next generation”.
But he said South Africa’s history of struggle against apartheid proved that dialogue can be a “powerful force for transformation”, describing the National Dialogue as “a call to debate and to discuss” and “a call to action”.
“It is a call to all South Africans to seize this moment for change and progress. It is a call to build a society in which there is a place for everyone, where the country’s wealth is shared by all — a South Africa that truly belongs to all who live in it.”
Khabela Mahlosa, a former director general for political affairs at the African Union Commission, called the dialogue “a long-drawn event”, saying that after the preparatory phase, implementation would follow. Citing Kenya’s post-2007-08 election unrest, he said a similar dialogue process overseen by the AU had led to a new constitution and reduced election-related violence.
“The dialogue process must have a well-defined agenda agreed upon by a multiplicity of actors, with a legal framework, an independent, respected convener and a regional body like SADC to provide oversight,” Mahlosa said.
Nomfundo Mogapi, the chief executive of the Centre for Mental Wellness and Leadership, cautioned that South Africa’s crisis was often discussed in a “fight or flight” mode, which made trauma-based conversations unproductive.
“Your greatest work is to be awake to yourself so that we can hear what other people are saying,” she said.
Keitumetse Moutloatse, chairperson of the Black Womxn Caucus, said Ramaphosa had for the first time in a long while “put his guard down” and used a less stiff diplomatic style in his speech.
“He didn’t overcommit. There is a good and clear appreciation of the problem,” she said, commending Ramaphosa’s commitment to reducing the government’s role but adding that there was a lack of a clear strategy for community-led discussions.
Glen Snyman, the founder of People Against Race Classification, told the M&G that his organisation was working to end race classification and that he hoped the dialogue would address personal identity.
“Do we still need to reference people as black, white, coloured and Indian? We need to move forward and can’t still stick with old practices. They are prejudicial. They keep us stuck,” he said.
Nomboniso Gasa, a member of the eminent persons group appointed by Ramaphosa to guide the National Dialogue, said its role was to champion and advise the president and act as guarantors of the process. She expressed confidence that community discussions would take place.
“There’s a clear rollout plan which has been conceptualised. If they stick to the plan these will happen. What we need to ensure is that all of them — the citizens — should take charge,” Gasa said.