OPINION | Refusal to postpone dialogue undermines the whole process’s legitimacy, public confidence

SA’s national dialogue initiative, launched to address some of the country’s most pressing socioeconomic and political challenges through a people-driven, inclusive conversation, is engulfed in a significant controversy.

Seven prominent legacy foundations, including those named after some of the country’s political luminaries including Chief Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Zephania Mothopeng, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Steve Biko, Thabo Mbeki and others – regarded as the initiators of the national dialogue process – have publicly withdrawn from the preparatory task team and the upcoming first national dialogue convention scheduled for this Friday, August 15.

The foundations’ withdrawal signals deep concerns about the dialogue’s rushed timeline, the erosion of citizen leadership, and the perceived government takeover of what was originally conceived as a citizen-led process.

Meanwhile, President Cyril Ramaphosa insists that the convention must proceed as planned, underscoring a rupture that risks undermining both the legitimacy and effectiveness of the entire initiative.

Central to the foundations’ concern is what they describe as “the rushed nature of the process where the deadline of August 15 has been without adequate logistical and preparatory readiness, insufficient budget transparency, last-minute funding assurances, and unclear engagement plans at grassroots levels, and overall misalignment within organising structures”.

Compounding the situation for the foundations is “a strategic shift away from citizen-led leadership towards government control, thereby undermining the dialogue’s trust and authenticity”.

This unfolding kerfuffle is a clarion call for an urgent conversation about fundamental principles essential to successful, people-centred dialogue: chiefly achieving the delicate balance between iteration – the repeated cycles of consultation, feedback and refinement – and time-boundedness; the clear, structured deadlines that maintain momentum.

As it is, while the legacy foundations have explicitly called for postponing the convention to October 25 to strike this balance, Ramaphosa’s determination to proceed on August 15 risks deepening mistrust and, inadvertently, confirming the very concerns the foundations raised about government hijacking and inadequate preparation.

This situation is compounded by Ramaphosa’s response to the foundations’ withdrawal, with the government restructuring the organising team to include various social partners and civil society formations “to preserve inclusivity and ensuring [that] the convention is not a government but a platform for citizens of all stripes to lead”.

Unfortunately, Ramaphosa’s response to the foundations’ withdrawal smacks of the government prioritising momentum over resolving foundational concerns and trust-building. His insistence on the deadline risks alienating key moral and civic actors, which in turn undermines the whole process’s legitimacy and public confidence.

Ramaphosa’s refusal to postpone despite credible concerns about readiness, inclusivity, and financing suggests a centralisation of control inconsistent with the original concept of a citizen dialogue.

This dynamic also weakens trust among ordinary South Africans who are already sceptical about institutional processes. When moral guardians of the democratic legacy exit in protest, many citizens may perceive the dialogue as a top-down event, engineered to legitimise political agendas rather than to genuinely respond to people’s needs.

Critically, Ramaphosa’s decision fails to address the most important principle for the success of people-driven negotiations of this magnitude: the balance between iteration and time-boundedness. His seemingly rushed and unilateral top-down signalling risks repeating the mistakes of exclusion and distrust that derail citizen-driven initiatives.

On the other hand, Ramaphosa can benefit from world experiences such as Tunisia’s national dialogue quartet and Colombia’s peace negotiations as examples of how national dialogues succeed when processes respect both iterative feedback and firm deadlines, supported by neutral facilitation and transparent governance.

By acceding to the legacy foundations’ call for a postponement of the first national dialogue convention, Ramaphosa would go a long way to restoring public trust, deepening inclusivity, and ensuring that the national dialogue truly is people-driven rather than a government-managed event.

Only by doing so can SA realise the full potential of its national dialogue: a genuine, citizen-led platform that unites diverse voices in forging a shared, sustainable future for all South Africans.