Fractured Dialogues: Lessons for South Africa’s National Dialogue Convention
Talking at Us, Not With Us: The Failure of South Africa’s Dialogue
The fallout between government, legacy foundations, and civil society groups ahead of and during the National Dialogue Convention provides a sobering reflection of the fractures in South Africa’s political discourse.
Once confined largely to formal political structures such as Parliament, these divisions are now publicly playing out in national platforms intended to foster consensus and reform. While the African National Congress (ANC) sought to leverage the dialogue to reaffirm its historic role as the self-appointed “leader of society,” the outcome revealed both the limits of this claim and the growing mistrust between the state and citizenry.
The ANC and Vanguardism
The ANC has historically framed itself as a “vanguard movement,” drawing from Leninist ideology that posits a disciplined leadership as the custodian of societal direction (Lodge, 2002). Even after the democratic transition, President Thabo Mbeki famously remarked in his “I Am an African” speech that the ANC remained the custodian of transformation (Mbeki, 1996).
However, the electoral decline of the ANC in May 2024, when it fell below 50% of the national vote for the first time, has undermined its legitimacy as a vanguard. Attempts to use the National Dialogue to reclaim this symbolic position were met with scepticism and outright rejection.
Contesting Legitimacy of the Dialogue
The South African Communist Party (SACP) acknowledged the necessity of dialogue but cautioned that “the legitimacy of the National Dialogue process lies in its inclusivity” (SACP, 2025). The Forum for South Africa (FOSA) similarly questioned the lack of transparency in planning, particularly regarding the use of state resources without clear accountability. These concerns echo broader critiques of South Africa’s political culture, where citizen engagement is often managed from above rather than genuinely owned by society (Gumede, 2020).
Understanding National Dialogues
National dialogues are defined as nationally owned political processes aimed at consensus-building during crises, transitions, or periods of entrenched political deadlock (International IDEA, 2021). While South Africa’s context is not post-war, the depth of political distrust, rising inequality, and weak state legitimacy mirror conditions where such dialogues are necessary.
As Nelson Mandela argued during the multiparty negotiations of the early 1990s, “only through inclusive engagement can we overcome our divisions and build a future for all South Africans” (Mandela, 1991).
Comparative Lessons: Tunisia’s Dialogue Quartet
Tunisia’s 2013 National Dialogue demonstrates the power of inclusive, civil society-led mediation. Faced with assassinations, political deadlock, and mass protests, four civil society groups - the UGTT, UTICA, the Tunisian Human Rights League, and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers - stepped in as neutral facilitators (Yerkes, 2015). Their efforts produced a new constitution, a caretaker government, and eventually free elections.
In 2015, they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Crucially, the dialogue succeeded because it was not monopolised by political elites but instead grounded in civil society’s legitimacy.
Why Inclusivity Matters in South Africa
The Inclusive Peace and Transition Initiative (IPTI), in its comparative study of 17 National Dialogues, found that while the majority succeeded in reaching agreements, only half saw those agreements effectively implemented.
This highlights a recurring paradox: National Dialogues, designed as inclusive political processes to foster consensus and renewal, too often fall short of producing lasting change. Beyond the implementation gap, scholars caution that such dialogues can be co-opted by political elites as tools to advance narrow agendas, thereby weakening their legitimacy and undermining genuine transformation.
South Africa’s National Dialogue is faltering because of exclusivity, arrogance, and political machismo. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once noted, “inclusive dialogue is not an option; it is an imperative for peace and legitimacy” (Annan, 2005). Excluding dissenting voices risks entrenching fragmentation and perpetuating cycles of mistrust. Pragmatically, inclusivity reduces the risk of spoilers and builds broader buy-in (Papagianni, 2014). Normatively, it strengthens democratic culture and ensures that outcomes are ethically grounded.
Proposing a Futures-Oriented Approach
Building on existing critiques, we argue that the National Dialogues could be strengthened by adopting futures-oriented methodologies. Approaches such as the Transformative Scenario Process (TSP) and Future Search provide practical frameworks for embedding inclusivity, shared ownership, transparency, and accountability - principles widely recognised as critical to the success of any dialogue.
These methodologies have been effectively applied in fragile and conflict-affected settings, enabling diverse stakeholders to work together in shaping long-term solutions. By integrating such tools, our National Dialogue can be reconceptualised -not merely as reactive forums addressing immediate crises, but as forward-looking process that is deliberately convened, designed, and facilitated to build resilient pathways for sustainable growth and governance.
The Way Forward
For South Africa, several lessons emerge:
Civil Society Leadership: The process must be citizen-owned, not state-managed, to build legitimacy.
Transparency and Accountability: Clear reporting on resource allocation and decision-making is essential.
Diverse Participation: Marginalised communities, women, and youth must be at the centre, not the periphery, of dialogue.
Institutional Support: A permanent mechanism for dialogue, possibly legislated, could prevent ad hoc convenings prone to collapse.
Rethinking the Process: From Convention to Transformation
The challenges we face demand more than conventional, state-led approaches to National Dialogue. What is required are transformative, future-focused processes that disrupt entrenched structures and empower a far wider range of voices. This means equipping and supporting local civil society leaders to convene diverse groups - people with different experiences, beliefs, and interests, yet united by a shared uncertainty, even anxiety, about the future.
In these spaces, participants can co-create the conditions for imagining alternative futures, developing innovative pathways to interrupt cycles of conflict and enable the emergence of a more peaceful, prosperous, and safe South Africa.
South Africa’s recent National Dialogue Convention underscored both the fragility of our democratic project and the futility of any one party - least of all the declining ANC - claiming singular authority to “lead society.” If dialogue is to serve as a truly transformative platform, it must abandon outdated vanguardist notions and embrace genuine inclusivity.
Tunisia’s experience offers a powerful reminder of what is possible: civil society-led dialogue restored legitimacy, mediated deep divisions, and catalysed democratic renewal. The pressing question for South Africa is whether its leaders can overcome political arrogance and approach dialogue not as performance for legitimacy, but as a practice of shared nation-building.
References
Annan, K. (2005). In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. United Nations.
Gumede, W. (2020). Restless Nation: Making Sense of Troubled Times. Tafelberg.
International IDEA. (2021). National Dialogues in Peace Processes. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Lodge, T. (2002). Politics in South Africa: From Mandela to Mbeki. Indiana University Press.
Mandela, N. (1991). Address at CODESA opening plenary, 20 December 1991.
Mbeki, T. (1996). “I Am an African” speech, adopted in the South African Constitution, 8 May 1996.
Papagianni, K. (2014). National Dialogue Processes in Political Transitions. International Peace Institute.
South African Communist Party (SACP). (2024). Statement on the National Dialogue Convention.
Yerkes, S. (2015). The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet: A Nobel Peace Prize Winner. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.