If the national dialogue is happening, there is no clear process nor indication of the categories of participants

I mentioned previously that the notion of a national dialogue has been met with mixed feelings, but it could result in a unifying or emancipatory output. That depends on the processes deployed, and if there is not a clearly planned way of reaching and hearing people or enabling their presence at some or other place, the output could be zero - apart from government and others who conventionally relate with government.

Questions are not being asked about the character and process entailed in the national dialogue itself. If there are processes in motion, what and where are they? Is it something that “happens” at specific places designated by government and where other elite sectors assemble? What is the role of the more humble in contributing to the agenda or how discussion is managed and the hoped-for outcomes materialise?

If the dialogue is to succeed as a national process, all need to feel that they own that process, that it is not simply what government laid down as guidelines within which they could have their say or have it within limits that were imposed. They may have wanted to explore other issues. It will be asked whether there were openings for these.

The invitation to the dialogue has no substance if it does not reach some categories of people and if they do not have a viable way of being at the designated place or have people come to them to hear what they wish to say or being part of some or other process that may be better able to accommodate their needs than that which government initiates. Government cannot be the only initiator of a viable and wide-ranging national dialogue.

As far as can be ascertained no such plans - to accommodate all - are in place. “All” does not literally mean every inhabitant of South Africa for many may be represented by those who are designated by them or come from the same circumstances of some people and be able to articulate the issues that preoccupy them.

This cannot happen unless the state/government has the will and the means to initiate it, and the extent to which it can be democratised depends also on the extent of democratisation in the country. A range of problems are unattended in areas where there is hunger, lack of basic necessities and infrastructure.

But people may confront these as individuals because there is no organisation where they live or the only recourse to access those with power is to appeal to a traditional leader to act on their behalf - as a specifically invited or “recognised” category of leadership.

In urban areas there are large numbers of people who do not live in conventional homes and often are in makeshift dwellings or squatting under bridges, with little if any protection against the elements. There is apparently no organised force linking those living in squalor and apparently no effort to take their plight to the national dialogue.

Question of organisation

That there is an organisational vacuum speaks to the decline of the ANC that cannot be measured merely by votes.

For the national dialogue to be a national dialogue, in other words, to reach anyone who wants to say anything or any organisation who wishes to contribute towards the outcome of the dialogue, there must be organisation of people to reach those who need to be heard or to hear what may be said that affects their plight.

There must be organisation that captures the views of people who suffer from a range of grievances in all parts of the country, living in a range of conditions.

In the rural areas, we know that the idea of a national dialogue may have reached very few people, and even fewer than that will be able to find their way to wherever this national dialogue will hear opinions or hear about experiences. Where that is and whether it is centralised or decentralised in any one place, I have no idea.

As far as has been reported, there are no plans to hear voices in the rural areas, though one does not know what is planned with traditional leaders (and there are reservations attached to many of them being bearers of messages of those designated as their subjects).

There is nothing in much of the media about plans to reach people or ways of drawing in people in faraway areas, living in harsh conditions or in other difficult conditions - that are not far away - to be able to speak about their plights.

What we are speaking about is the absence of basic organisational resources. This I would put at the door of the ANC, not necessarily the ANC of Cyril Ramaphosa, but over the decades, the organisational capacity of the ANC, the emphasis placed on organisation of a membership with a sense of connection to the oppressed (who largely remain oppressed) has declined.

When writing about current politics before the 2024 elections, I referred to the “electoralism” of the ANC, that the significance of the ANC came to be reduced to that of an electoral machine of the organisation, where, as elections approached, the organisation would be harnessed as a means for gathering votes from the members, quickly enrolling people in order to have them be members and participate in processes for choosing candidates, but also making sure that they played a part in making sure people who were recruited or became supporters went to the polls.

There has been little debate over ideas that used to fire the enthusiasm of members and supporters in the 1980s, right up until 1994 and the early 21st century.

I related this to an earlier period in the ANC’s history, when the organisation took a turn towards becoming a conventional political party like those in Western Europe and the United States. This was not an organisational decision voiced in its formal debates or documentation or in the public domain. But it happened, and about two to three decades later the ANC is generally referred to as a political party.

Previously, up till 1990-1994 the ANC, had a national liberation character in the positive sense of the word, in that it was owned by the people that it represented, the cadres and activists felt they were bound to the oppressed.

People prayed for the ANC leaders at night, they had emblems signifying their loyalty in their homes, despite the illegality of the ANC and SACP.

 After 1990 and 1994, new opportunities arose and some anticipated this before then. Some people had the foresight to understand that if they took a different route (from political debate and organising) by preparing for the civil service or to be CEOs of state-owned entities or of businesses, they would have the opportunity to acquire wealth.

But it was more than this, in that some families expected that the return of exiles and other features of the unbanning of organisations would be a return of sons and daughters with wealth, relieving some of the family burdens. In truth, most of those who had devoted so much time towards the Struggle in prison, in exile or inside the country, came back or out of prison with little.

Now some of this, as I have suggested, had this positive familial element, but - in the emerging conditions - it was a pressure towards making the ANC into something else, and to denuding the ANC of its organisational capacity, its capacity to train members to become people who could recruit and organise and train others in values of responsibility towards their oppressed brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. That has dissipated.

Nowadays, the ANC hardly devotes much time to recruiting people, except before its own organisational elections or situations when they are needed for national or other elections where power and patronage are at stake.

Consequently, at this moment the ANC does not have the capacity to go to some rural area where there's no presence and organise people, either as the ANC or into fresh sectoral or regional organisations. It need not be done by the ANC itself.  

If it were a well-equipped organisation, it would have allies who could do this from some of the sectors, and organise people so that they could participate in the national dialogue. That they cannot do this relates to the running down of organisation of all sections of what used to be a thriving tripartite alliance. (Organisations like Gift of the Givers may well be doing it but I have not read or heard of it).

Absence of process

A community or all communities cannot simply be invited to participate, and that participation materialise. To participate can be as an individual if that individual knows where to go and can get there. It depends on distance and transport and resources and, if necessary, being able to get off work and out of other responsibilities.

There are no indications that the organisers have set up methods whereby various categories of potential participants can be heard or their contributions captured by gathering information from them, as happened in the Congress of the People Campaign leading to the adoption of the Freedom Charter.

Potential participants are scattered throughout South Africa in differing living conditions and with varying resources to access the initial invitation and to respond.

It is already nearly September. What invitations have gone out and with what methodologies to elicit and capture responses? Have any gone to people/communities and located where? If it is happening, it is a very secretive method that is deployed.

This is not the way to organise a “national dialogue”. It cannot be serious, or alternatively, it is mainly a gathering of elite sections of the population.

Raymond Suttner is an Emeritus Professor at the University of South Africa and a Research Associate in the English Department at University of the Witwatersrand. He served lengthy periods as a political prisoner. His writings cover contemporary politics, history, and social questions. His X (twitter) handle is @raymondsuttner.