If we are to transform this nation, we must have the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, the patience to listen deeply and the resolve to act decisively.
Can we afford to put our trust in what seems like yet another tick-box exercise that fails the test of common sense and sound process? I’m afraid not, but here we are again.
The so-called national dialogue, which was supposed to be held on 16 December, will now commence in 2025.
Why, you might ask, am I so disappointed and critical when I’ve been advocating for dialogue as a conflict transformation practitioner for 42 years? Isn’t it a good thing to call for a national dialogue? Of course it is — especially now that it is framed as “processes of widespread sectoral and community dialogues on the major South African challenges”.
It seems that the president is indeed listening to people like Oscar van Heerden who recently wrote: “If the Presidency wants to avoid yet another talk shop about the SA problématique, it should get its act together to undertake this very historic process which, if done properly and thoughtfully, will transform the lives of the entire nation.”
Yet, I’m still worried that what Mcebisi Jonas, who first called for a national dialogue, had in mind is barely recognisable.
As a former deputy finance minister and a whistleblower on state capture, Jonas has been vocal about the need for transparency, accountability and good governance in South Africa. His call for a national dialogue surely was an attempt to foster a broader conversation about the country’s challenges and political solutions, promoting unity and cooperation among South Africans.
When Jonas proposed a national dialogue, figures such as Thabo Mbeki, and the ANC, quickly appropriated the idea, reframing it to suit their agenda. Call it an “idea-in-transit heist”, if you will.
Instead of generating energy to tackle the systemic rot that threatens the fabric of us as a nation and crafting a joint action plan, this version seems destined to become yet another failed initiative.
The challenge lies not in the concept of dialogue but in its execution. Many practitioners have offered insights into what makes such initiatives successful. Here are 10 critical lessons we cannot afford to ignore:
Lesson 1: Don’t call it a dialogue when you have debate, negotiations or consultations in mind.
What do we mean by dialogue? As I’ve written before, “Dialogue is a process of respectful interaction where people in safe and uncomfortable spaces listen deeply enough to each other to be changed by what they have learned.
“This change happens because people think together, analyse together, appreciate complexity and, in the process, begin to better understand each other’s motives and intentions. As understanding and trust grow, relationships shift, so people dare to act together.”
The purpose of dialogue is to listen first. If we don’t show genuine intention to understand the different views and dynamics, how are we supposed to weave a better future together? When debate and winning arguments are the primary responses to complex problems, are we not simply reinforcing and repeating a dysfunctional political culture with winners and losers who try to prove each other wrong?
Lesson 2: Political leaders should not lead national dialogues.
Research has shown that national dialogues often serve as tools for elites to bolster their legitimacy, undermining their transformative potential.
South Africa learned this in 1991 when neither FW de Klerk nor Nelson Mandela could credibly convene the National Peace Accord. Instead, it was civil society leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and businessman John Hall, supported by the Consultative Business Movement’s expertise, who guided the process to success.
Yet, here we are, repeating the mistake of letting political elites dictate the process. Dialogue must be led by those with the trust of diverse communities — not those seeking political gain.
Lesson 3: There is no place for hierarchy in dialogue circles.
Sitting in circles is as old as humanity itself. For some weird reason the culture in society has shifted to a hierarchical “talking-from-the-stage-to-people-sitting-in-rows-below” setup. For far too long, we have witnessed dehumanising and disempowering practices where people, lured by promises of T-shirts and free lunch, are convened to listen passively to honourables who tell them what was decided. At lunchtime, the VIPs enjoy their buffets, while the community queue outside for their food in styrofoam boxes.
True dialogue dismantles these barriers and elevates every voice.
Lesson 4: Exclusion delegitimises dialogue.
The most glaring pitfall in many attempts at national dialogue is the failure to be truly inclusive. Too often, these discussions are dominated by political elites, business interests or particular sectors of civil society, leaving large swathes of the population — especially rural communities, the youth and marginalised groups — on the fringes. True dialogue must reflect the voices of ordinary citizens, acknowledging their lived realities and diverse perspectives.
In an article for the Inclusive Society Institute titled The National Dialogue: Pathway to a People’s Plan for South Africa, Klaus Kotze states the obvious but often ignored principle: “For the process of a national dialogue to be authoritative and for its goals and programmes actionable, it must entail the expressed will of the majority of South Africans.
“For it to be an effective common vision, the active participation and assent of all of society is required. It is from its democratic participation and accord that a national dialogue receives its legitimacy and it is its legitimacy that affords it power.”
We cannot expect the majority of South Africans to embrace the national dialogue when they have not been included in the agenda setting, the preparation, the organising and facilitation of the national dialogue. This would require a “whole-of-society” undertaking, as Kotze says, which gives voice and power back to the people.
Like rivulets find ways to become a life-giving river, voices from all the corners of the country should converge into a national dialogue.
Lesson 5: Dialogue is a structured process, not an event.
Successful dialogues are not single-day events but structured, ongoing processes. South Africa’s history underscores this.
The National Peace Accord’s structures, which nurtured a culture of dialogue and mediation, were prematurely dismantled because parliament wrongly reckoned that the National Peace Secretariat was no longer needed. The ANC was in power. Peace had arrived.
Similarly, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission initiated vital conversations about the past, restorative justice and accountability but left critical economic and social inequities unaddressed.
The main questions that need to be answered are not when it will happen, who will attend and what needs to be discussed, but how to initiate and sustain dialogue in ongoing and meaningful ways.
In other words, how do we get, and keep, South Africans talking? How do we build a culture of dialogue that becomes part of our DNA as South Africans? What is the scaffolding, the infrastructure, the anchors that can support dialogue as a process structure and who needs to coordinate that?
A true culture of dialogue requires sustained engagement, mechanisms for follow-through, and infrastructure to ensure continuity. Regular forums for engagement, paired with mechanisms for implementation, ensure that conversations evolve and adapt to new challenges.
Lesson 6: Begin with conversations to understand how issues are linked and experienced by different communities.
South Africa experiences systemic problems, which can neither be addressed in silos nor be solved by the elites. Factors that drive or mitigate our problems are woven into a self-sustaining system. We need to understand how it works.
People in my home town, Stellenbosch, will offer very different insights into dynamics that fuel or mitigate our systemic problems, depending on the neighbourhood they live in and whether they have a place to stay. The same applies to the different sectors of society: business and workers; rural and urban communities; religious and secular organisations; state and NGOs, etc.
The difficult, but exciting, challenge is to have the courage to participate in uncomfortable and complex conversations in and outside our comfort zones and spheres of influence. We need not ask “who is right?” but “let me understand how you see things from your perspective”.
In these dialogues, we ought to park our preconceived judgments and beliefs outside the door. Curiosity and the ability to listen without judgment and openness to be surprised by what we learn are of critical importance.
It also requires a great deal of humility, because, quite frankly, no one has the answer. We need to figure it out collectively. Complexity is our friend — not the enemy. It’s an invitation to be more creative. If we understand together, we might be able to agree on what the common and divergent issues are that we can jointly tackle.
A last point on systems thinking: The “what” and “how” precede the “who”. It’s only when we understand the contributing and mitigating factors and how the system operates that we can ask who is involved and who should be at the table. I’m afraid, in the current scenario, it has already been decided who should be invited.
Lesson 7: Preparations and dialogue are not separate processes.
Meaningful preparation isn’t separate from dialogue — it is dialogue. Involving people in agenda-setting, planning and process design ensures ownership and authenticity. Participants must be architects of the conversation, not passive recipients of pre-determined agendas and outcomes. Their dreams, ideas and plans matter.
We need to honour the wisdom that is in, between and amongst us, as John Paul Lederach reminds us.
Lesson 8: The past is important but so is the present and the future.
We often hear people, especially privileged ones, say that we need to move on from the past. Hardly anyone talks about how difficult it is to imagine ourselves free from the pain of the past when the past is present and before us all the time.
Lederach reminds us that, “Moral imagination does not see the past as something to be overcome, laid aside or forgotten in order to move toward a better future.
“Instead, the narratives that give meaning to people’s lives and relationships must be told and the repetitive patterns acknowledged so that healing can take place. People must attempt to discover where they’ve been, who they are, where they are going, and how they will make this journey together. Between memory and the potential future, there is the place of narrative, the art of ‘restorying’.”
The only way people will be able to deal with the past is to have an opportunity to talk about it and shape a new narrative of what is to come. It will take time, but if we truly want to have a genuine national dialogue, we must find ways to listen to one another’s lived experiences, in the past and present, because that shapes our vision for the future.
Lesson 9: Balance between process and outcome.
The Berghof Foundation’s research points out that, “while procedural aspects (like transparency and inclusion) are vital, dialogues must also produce actionable agreements addressing underlying conflict drivers and promoting development”.
Dialogue about outcomes without proper process is chaotic and a waste of time. On the other hand, dialogue that gets stuck in process all the time is sterile.
Dialogue fatigue is real, mostly because people are tired of conversations that lead nowhere. The Dialogue for Action networks in South Africa is a good example of people who make a difference through taking joint action.
Once again, the challenge lies in having the tough conversations, not for the sake of dialogue, but for taking action that has a tangible effect on people’s lives.
Lesson 10: Beware of overloading the agenda.
There are, of course, thousands of issues that need to be discussed. Systems analysis is a useful methodology to understand how these issues link together as factors, causes and effects around certain themes.
Distilling the main themes and understanding how they create and influence systems of poverty, violence, inequality and so forth, makes it easier to address these problems.
Navigating complex problems is sometimes surprisingly simple when the right questions are asked, such as: Where are we now, why are we here, where do we want to be as South Africans in future?
We can also ask:
- What makes me proud of my country?
- What vision do I have for its future?
- What do we need to talk about but haven’t?
- What can we do for ourselves and where do we need help?
These questions inspire people to connect to identity, vision, the elephants in the room, personal agency, willingness to take action and calling for help where help is needed.
I dream of a South Africa where dialogue isn’t a sporadic event but a way of life — a nation constantly in conversations that bridge divides and build shared purpose.
Our challenges are immense but so is our potential. If we are to transform this nation, we must have the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, the patience to listen deeply and the resolve to act decisively.
The national dialogue could be a turning point — but only if we do it right. Let’s not waste this opportunity.
Chris Spies is a founding director of the Unyoke Foundation. He has decades of experience as a trainer, facilitator, accompanier and peacebuilder in South Africa and internationally.