On 15 August 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa convened the first National Convention at the University of South Africa (UNISA). Hosted over two days in the historic ZK Matthews Great Hall, the gathering was billed as the launchpad for the much-heralded National Dialogue. 

According to the weekly letter from the President’s desk, more than 1,000 delegates from all sectors of society attended the Convention, alongside members of the Executive, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice and members of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG).

Yet, for all the lofty promises of renewal and dialogue, what unfolded was closer to farce than statesmanship. Watching the proceedings on television, one could not escape the spectacle of chaos: a convention stripped of coherence, resembling an orchestra without a conductor – a chaotic symphony without harmony. 

The programme lurched from one item to the next without purpose, while the facilitators, far from rising to the occasion, seemed overwhelmed by it.

The spectacle of disorganisation merely vindicated the concerns that had already been flagged by the Legacy Foundations in their withdrawal statement of 08 August 2025. In that statement, the Foundations decried the government’s heavy-handed dominance over the preparatory processes, its potential disregard for the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) in the procurement of services, and the glaring lack of readiness to convene such a historic gathering on 15 August. 

What unfolded at UNISA was therefore not a surprise; it was the predictable consequence of arrogance, mismanagement, and lack of cohesion in the Preparatory Task Team (PTT).

The absence of several political parties represented in Parliament, together with the withdrawal of the Legacy Foundations and other key stakeholders, underscored the crisis of credibility that dogged the Convention from the start. 

At the heart of this failure lies a deficit of confidence-building. Seemingly, no serious effort was made to secure consensus on the basic principles that should guide a national dialogue. Instead of persuasion, reassurance, and genuine engagement, the organisers adopted a top-down approach that alienated precisely those voices whose participation would have lent legitimacy to the process.

This failure is not a matter of opinion alone; it is borne out in the literature on national dialogues. Christopher Zambakari, writing in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs under the title “Six Factors for Successful National Dialogues”, outlines six minimum requirements for success, namely, a credible convener; deliberate confidence-building measures; cessation of hostilities where relevant; broad-based inclusion of all key stakeholders; a clearly defined pre-consultation phase; and concrete plans for dialogue, implementation, and post-dialogue follow-up. As he stresses, inclusive preparatory committees are indispensable for building consensus around core issues.

The question we must therefore contend with is stark: were these minimum requirements seriously considered ahead of the Convention? And if so, on what basis did the convenors assure themselves and the nation that these prerequisites had been met? On the evidence of those two days at UNISA, the answer seems painfully clear: they were not!

It would be useful at this point to assess the satisfaction of applicable requirements regarding South Africa’s National Dialogue, particularly ahead of the Convention, namely, the credibility of the convener, confidence-building measures, broad-based inclusivity, pre-consultation, appropriate preparatory committees, and a clear agenda.

Credibility of the Convener

The very first requirement of a national dialogue is that the convener must command trust across society. This is where the South African process failed at inception. The Legacy Foundations were explicit that while the Head of State has the constitutional authority to call for a national dialogue, the process must be citizen-led in both design and execution. Instead, the government recast the people’s project into a state-centred spectacle.

The voice of the Legacy Foundations, as the progenitors and initial organisers of the Dialogue, is critical because they carry the historical memory, ethical grounding, and societal legitimacy that a truly citizen-led process demands. These institutions were not merely advisors; they embody the principles, values, and collective wisdom that are essential to guide the National Dialogue. Ignoring their guidance has proven to reproduce the very mistakes the Dialogue was meant to overcome, that is, state capture of a people’s initiative, dilution of citizen agency, and erosion of trust. Their input ensures that the process remains anchored in genuine public participation, reflective of society’s diverse voices, and shielded from partisan or bureaucratic manipulation.

For instance, the PTT, originally envisaged as balanced, was swamped with state officials. At one point, the government even sought to parachute 81 civil servants into a 40-member Sub-Committee. This turned what was meant to be an independent, citizen-driven platform into a bureaucratic echo chamber. Credibility, once squandered, cannot be regained by optics or rhetoric. The government’s dominance discredited the Convention before the first delegate even walked into UNISA.

Confidence-Building Measures

Trust is not decreed; it is built painstakingly through persuasion, compromise, and respect. The Legacy Foundations pleaded for this. They urged that the Convention be postponed until October 2025 to allow proper preparation, legal compliance with the PFMA, and genuine engagement with sceptical stakeholders. Instead, the Presidency brushed these warnings aside, declaring that postponement would “damage the reputation of the National Dialogue.”

This arrogance turned potential partners into critics. Far from fostering inclusion, the organisers reinforced the perception that dissenting voices were obstacles rather than essential participants. Worse still, the government’s last-minute financial allocations (just seven working days before the event) created an atmosphere of panic and shortcuts, precisely the conditions that breed mistrust. Instead of building confidence, it was demolished.

Broad-Based Inclusivity

A dialogue that excludes is not the kind of dialogue South Africa needs at this current conjecture; it is rather a talk shop with no impact whatsoever. The very actors who could have lent credibility to the process were absent. Several political parties represented in parliament, including the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), refused to attend. Former Presidents Thabo Mbeki, Kgalema Motlanthe and Jacob Zuma, influential business figures such as Johan Rupert and the Oppanhiemers, and even controversial organisations like Afriforum were absent from the tent, which was quite telling.

Inclusivity is non-negotiable, however uncomfortable it may be. We cannot hope to recalibrate South Africa’s democracy while deliberately excluding those who shape its political economy, for better or worse. The absence of these voices reduced the Convention to a gathering of the compliant and the co-opted, resembling an echo chamber that spoke only to itself.

Pre-Consultation

The “September 50” strategy session of 2024 had already laid a clear foundation that the National Dialogue should be citizen-led, solution-driven, and anchored in ward-level and sectoral consultations. This required rigorous pre-consultation, distribution of discussion documents, and the generation of data-driven reports. None of this materialised.

Seemingly, the delegates of the Convention arrived at UNISA with no background papers, no fact sheets, and no structured thematic guidelines. Even the commissioned discussion documents were withheld. This stripped the Convention of substance and reduced it to what the Foundations rightly called “just another talk shop.” The pre-consultation phase was the stage meant to build shared understanding, which sadly was sacrificed on the altar of expedience. The result was a 1,000-piece orchestra without a score and a conductor – a symphony without harmony.

Preparatory Committee

If the pre-consultation was hollow, then the preparatory structures were fatally compromised. What began as a civil society-led Preparatory Committee devolved into a government-heavy Convention Organising Committee paralysed by divisions and unproductive power struggles. So acute were these divisions that two conflicting reports on readiness were presented – one to the EPG and another to the President.

The Legacy Foundations pushed for consensus, even securing an independent facilitator at NEDLAC on 5 August. That meeting concluded that postponement was unavoidable. Yet within twenty-four hours, government delegates produced a contradictory account, effectively overruling the consensus. When the President sided with haste over substance, the civil society partners decided to withdraw. The preparatory committee was effectively reduced to a battlefield where one side had the guns of state power.

If the PTT had been coherent, the messy symphony that occurred at the first Convention could have been avoided. It remains unclear to South Africans why members of the PTT would fail to find each other if they all proclaim to be earnestly invested in the National Dialogue for the sake of the country and its future.

A Clear Agenda

Finally, a dialogue without a clear agenda is doomed to drift. My view is that the National Dialogue was supposed to begin with a hard look at South Africa’s journey since 1994, drawing on credible data from institutions like Statistics South Africa, and then move into scenario planning exercises such as the Indlulamithi Scenarios 2035. Instead, the Convention disappointingly lurched from one incoherent segment to another.

Without discussion documents, without structured frameworks, and without expert inputs, the gathering became a theatre of confusion. The Legacy Foundations had warned against this dilution of programming quality, stressing that the Convention needed to set the agenda for the ward-level and sectoral dialogues to follow. Instead, the “springboard” collapsed under the weight of its own disorganisation.

It is clear that when measured against Zambakari’s six criteria, South Africa’s National Convention failed every test. The convener lacked sufficient credibility, confidence-building was insufficient, inclusivity was sacrificed, pre-consultation was abandoned, preparatory committees collapsed, and the agenda was incoherent. What unfolded at UNISA was not the launch of a generational renewal but a betrayal of it. The Convention proved, in part, that when the government centralises what must be citizen-led, the result is not dialogue but debacle.

What are the broad implications of the Convention?

The disarray at UNISA does not end with two days of speeches, incoherent panel discussions, and procedural bungling. It casts a long shadow over the very future of the National Dialogue itself. What was meant to be a springboard now risks becoming a deadweight.

Firstly, the Convention has undermined the credibility of the broader process. If the launch is marked by confusion, exclusion, and arrogance, why should citizens trust the ward-level and sectoral dialogues that are supposed to follow? The Foundations had warned against this very danger that cutting corners and centralising control would destroy the integrity of the process before it even began. That warning has now materialised. Instead of inspiring confidence, the Convention has deepened cynicism.

Secondly, the Convention has reinforced the legitimacy crisis of the state. In a country where, according to the 25 Edelaman Trust Barometer South Africa, only 36% of citizens trust the government and voter turnout has collapsed to below 40%, the National Dialogue was a chance to rebuild trust through genuine inclusion. Instead, it confirmed suspicions that the government sees dialogue not as a platform for accountability but as a stage-managed performance to pacify a restless citizenry. Rather than strengthening democracy, the Convention may accelerate its hollowing out.

Thirdly, the Convention has weakened the principle of citizen leadership. The September 50 and the Legacy Foundations were clear: this process must be citizen-led in both form and substance. But UNISA demonstrated the opposite: a government-run show disguised as a people’s forum. If this pattern persists, the ward-level dialogues risk degenerating into exercises in co-option, where citizens are invited to participate only as spectators to decisions already taken.

Finally, the Convention has created a dangerous precedent of expedience over integrity. By insisting that the Dialogue proceed on 15 August despite glaring unpreparedness, the President signalled that political optics matter more than substance. This sends a chilling message that even generational projects of renewal can be subordinated to the short-term calculations in the calculus of power of those in office. If the National Dialogue is to be rescued, this precedent must be reversed.

In sum, the Convention has placed the entire project on life support. Unless it is radically reclaimed and returned to its citizen-led foundations, stripped of state dominance, and rebuilt on trust and inclusion, the National Dialogue will go the way of so many past commissions and compacts: remembered not for what it achieved, but for how it squandered a historic opportunity.

Reclaiming the National Dialogue

If the National Dialogue is not to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, it must be radically reclaimed and reset along the principles first envisioned by civil society. In line with the Foundations, I recommend the following:

Restore Citizen Leadership

The Dialogue must return to its foundational principle of being citizen-led in both form and substance. Government cannot convene, control, and preside over what is meant to be the people’s process. Citizens, through ward structures, civic organisations, faith groups, trade unions, and business forums, must set the agenda, choose the facilitators, and hold government accountable, not the other way around. The government’s role should be supportive and logistical, not directive or dominant.

Unlike government-led Imbizos, where the state is the lead organiser and final arbiter, the National Dialogue must treat government as one sector among many. Beyond providing logistical support, the government must actively participate as a stakeholder – no more, no less! Public representatives, administrators, and civil servants should contribute their perspectives as part of the broader national conversation. But let there be no confusion: government must not dominate or direct the Dialogue. Equally, however, its voice should not be marginalised. A truly citizen-led process acknowledges the government’s role without surrendering leadership to it.

Rebuilding Confidence Through Transparency

Trust is the main currency of dialogue and transparency is its guarantor. To rebuild it, every aspect of the process, including but not limited to funding, procurement, representation, agenda-setting, must be transparent and publicly accessible. No more co-branding of state logos, no more secrecy around budgets. Independent oversight structures drawn from civil society and professional bodies must ensure full compliance with the PFMA and international standards of financial governance. 

Essentially, the transparent the processes are, the greater the premium of trust the citizens will afford the Dialogue through their active participation as both ambassadors and contributors. Hence, it is extremely important that all the information regarding the Dialogue must be easily accessible even terms of languages that are used to disseminate the information. 

Broaden Inclusivity

Exclusion is the death of dialogue. Former Presidents, opposition parties, powerful business families, trade unions, youth formations, and even controversial institutions like Afriforum must be persuaded to take part. Their voices, however inconvenient, are part of the nation’s reality. As the Foundations argue, there can be no “holy cows” but rather the Dialogue must be underpinned by the sacred principle that all South Africans have a right to be heard and to prosper. 

Inclusivity must also go beyond elite actors. A true National Dialogue cannot ignore the voices of the rural majority, people in peripheral and marginalised communities, and persons with disabilities, whose daily struggles embody the very failures this Dialogue seeks to address. If their voices are not heard, the Dialogue risks becoming another elite compact, disconnected from the lived reality of millions. A people’s process must be exactly that – a forum where the least heard are given priority, not left at the margins.

Re-anchor the Dialogue in Substance

The Dialogue cannot continue as a “talk shop.” It must be content-driven. This means issuing discussion documents, thematic papers, and fact sheets in all official languages before each round of dialogue. It means drawing on credible data from institutions like Statistics South Africa and scenario-planning exercises such as Indlulamithi. Above all, it means moving from rhetoric to solutions by offering concrete, actionable proposals with timelines and accountability mechanisms.

Ultimately, reclaiming the Dialogue requires more than polite reform; it demands a reassertion of people’s sovereignty. If citizens do not seize back the space from government gatekeepers, the National Dialogue will become another broken promise, filed away alongside the unfulfilled recommendations of the TRC, the Zondo Commission, and countless other reports. But if reclaimed, defended, and rooted in people’s power, it could yet be the generational opportunity South Africa so desperately needs.

Finally, the National Dialogue is not a spectator sport; it is a collective endeavour that belongs to all of us, especially the youth who carry the torch of our nation’s future. It is time for citizens to rise, claim their seat at the table, and insist that their voices are not only heard but actively shape the national agenda. Like an Orchestra, our society is composed of diverse instruments in the form of voices, ideas, and aspirations that must come together under the guidance of a capable conductor. 

Without the right leadership, even the most talented instruments risk discord; with it, we can produce a harmonious symphony whose melody soothes, inspires, and unites. Let us demand that our National Dialogue be conducted with vision, integrity, transparency and proper coordination, so that the music of our democracy resounds clearly, inclusively, and powerfully. The time is now for us to lift our voices, to reclaim the Dialogue, and to co-create a future where every citizen can play their part in the symphony of our nation.

Kefentse Mkhari writes in his personal capacity.