The Will of the People must Trump Elitist Debates on SA's Future

Dr. Reneva Fourie

Die oupas, die oumas, is saam in die struggle 

Die hondjies, die katjies, is saam in die struggle 

As the citizen-centric nature of the National Dialogue is being challenged, the above words, first championed by Reverend Allan Boesak in the mid-1980s, serve as a poignant reminder of what a people-led process should entail. They call us back to a time when South Africans understood that genuine change comes from the ground up.

The anti-apartheid movement was broad and representative, cutting across sectors. It was predominantly black because of demographics and the nature of oppression, yet it carried a non-racial character that bound people together in pursuit of freedom. If the National Dialogue is to matter, it must incorporate this spirit. 

By design, the National Dialogue is not a once-off event. The National Convention, held at UNISA on 15 and 16 August 2025, was intended to start a chain of conversations that will reach every part of the country.

It sought to agree on key themes, establish a steering structure, and create an open space for public participation that extends far beyond a gathering in Tshwane. The Convention was intended to be the starting point of a living process in which people shape decisions that affect their lives.

Yet the process faced resistance before it even took off. Some of the most respected voices from South Africa’s liberation history, such as the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, chose not to attend the first gathering. 

They raised concerns about the quality of preparations, the influence of government over the process, and inadequate clarity regarding funding and governance. These concerns must not be dismissed. They are not excuses to abandon the Dialogue, but calls to improve it. If we heed these critiques and adapt accordingly, the process can still fulfil its promise.

Already, the Presidency has reworked the interim technical team, included more social partners, and formed an Eminent Persons Group to help guide the work. This is a positive step, but it is not enough. The process must move from something that feels state-led to something that is truly people-led, with government as only one of many partners.

Political noise has not been far away. The Democratic Alliance withdrew during coalition tensions, feeding a narrative of division. However, political point-scoring should not overshadow the deeper civic purpose of the Dialogue. This Dialogue must be bigger than party interests. 

For the Dialogue to place people at the centre of governance, we need several clear steps.

First, we must ensure that ordinary people are the authors of the Dialogue, not merely the audience. The National Convention must be treated as a participatory planning meeting where communities proposed, debated, and prioritized their ideas. Forthcoming district and sector meetings must be scheduled publicly, facilitation methods must be clearly defined, and criteria for incorporating community input must be transparently outlined.

Second, inclusion must be real. We need every official Dialogue space to be accessible in all eleven official languages, with facilities for people with disabilities, schedules that respect shift workers, mechanisms to overcome gender-based and geographical inhibitors of participation, and deliberate efforts to include the unemployed and marginalised. If attending is inaccessible, participation will be limited to the already privileged. That would betray the central idea of a people’s process.

Third, to be people-centered, a comprehensive communication strategy is required. Mainstream, government, and alternative media, as well as digital platforms, must be utilised to convey a coherent message.

Fourth, the Dialogue must yield visible results and manage expectations to address frustrations on the ground. Instead of complaining about our challenges, participants should use this as an opportunity to build social cohesion and national unity that mobilizes all of society towards collectively addressing them. 

The Dialogue should focus on a few urgent, realistic reforms that can be enacted within months, with public tracking of deadlines, responsible actors, and budget details. Transparency regarding funding is crucial; people need clear answers about expenditure, sources of funds, and accountability to build credibility. 

Fifth, we should revive the spirit of volunteerism. South Africa’s strongest civic traditions were not built on paid consultants but on unpaid organizers who believed that nation-building required personal sacrifice. Let trade unions convene worker assemblies. Let student organizations hold school-based and campus dialogues. Let faith groups open their doors to discussions. Let NGOs bring research and advocacy expertise. Let businesses offer meeting spaces and logistical support. Let traditional leaders anchor the Dialogue in local culture and history. When people build the process themselves, they will own the results.

Sixth, leaders must rise above petty disputes. They must put aside public quarrels and set an example of cooperation. Dialogue is not about avoiding disagreement. It is about managing disagreement in a constructive way. That means listening without defensiveness, conceding when the other side has a point, and working towards shared solutions that place the interests of South Africans at the center.

This year also marks the seventieth anniversary of the Freedom Charter. Its opening words, ‘The People Shall Govern’, remain a mirror to our reality. While our government is chosen by all the people, it does not always act in ways that feel rooted in their will. The National Dialogue offers a chance to close that gap. It can serve as a platform for renewing trust, aligning policy with the public interest, and enhancing delivery.

We also need to reclaim hope as a deliberate act. Many South Africans have grown adept at spotting what is wrong and are quick to share their despair. But we have never moved forward on cynicism alone. We move when we organize. We move when we join hands across race, class, gender, party and geography. We move when urban and rural voices meet each other as equals. If we can maximise participation, the National Dialogue can become what it was always meant to be. It can become a people-centered process for practical renewal and a living habit of shared decision-making. 

* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.