The word national must be interrogated. Will the national dialogue be truly national and what does that mean? And will it be a genuine dialogue and what does that mean? If it is not truly national, the dialogue is impugned just as the character of the dialogue must engage in a manner that entails talking with one another - all of us – talking and listening, listening and talking to each other, otherwise the national and “inclusive” character is undermined.

Who is part of the national dialogue that is being started or has started or will start? It is by no means obvious who comprise the national, given that those who live in South Africa are diverse and there are a range of identities that add to the richness or mar the unity in the eyes of some/many, who may wish these people to be excluded.

Some of those identities are not welcomed as part of the whole by sections of the population and some of these xenophobic notions are represented in the Cabinet.

The position here is - as said previously - that that every unity also and always comprises distinct qualities or in the case of human beings, identities, that coexist with one another as part of a broader unity.

The documentation on the national dialogue is very broad and open to multiple interpretations. In some respects, the dialogue may not be open to certain voices or it may be limited in its reach because of the way it is organised.

The national dialogue cannot simply be understood as unifying. Unity in our “nation” (another word that needs unpacking) must also entail full appreciation of the distinct components that comprise this unity. Are men and women equally independent human beings, for there are still documents that say that every reference to men must be taken to include women (and many other examples can be given)?

And we know that the reach of patriarchy is in every facet of our lives and institutions, sometimes by words but all too often with violence or death. (See Nomboniso Gasa https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/opinion-and-analysis/opinion/2024-08-25-put-black-women-at-the-centre-of-the-national-dialogue/). But for present purposes, it is sufficient to note that patriarchy may negatively affect the participation of women in the national dialogue.

The notion of being a human being must include a man or a woman but also non-heterosexual identities, a range of other sexual identities, that people have adopted. There must not be barriers in the way of their participation.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg in relating to diversity and distinct identities. It does not appear that there is any significant debate nor an indication that leaders who may have been designated as prime organisers are engaging with these issues.

Some of the discourse expresses a hope that the country will emerge more united after the dialogue(s). That is good, but oneness must not be elevated in a manner that suppresses or erases identities or does not engage adequately with the complexities of building links in all the diversity entailed.

Making decisions

If the national dialogue makes decisions, as was suggested by President Cyril Ramaphosa and in other literature from GNU figures, who must agree to such decisions? Who decides on what is on the agenda for potential decisions and how is agreement reached or decisions made and with what effect?

Who is being approached to participate?

How many people will participate in the activities that comprise the national dialogue and from where will they come and how will they reach wherever they need to be in order to take part? What is the aim and how will it be organised? Will the reach go further than ever before and, if so, what plans are in place? What place will there be for the thinking of ordinary people. Is their role to listen and contribute or mainly to endorse, or are they generally excluded?

At this point in time there may be some big gathering envisaged, but there is little evidence of an attempt to reach out and hear or ensure that people of a variety of kinds will be heard and be able to influence outcomes in one or other meaningful form.

We can guess that the dominant figures in the process of discussion and any decisions are members of the GNU, sections of business, and figures who populate various public institutions, specialists and experts of various kinds, members of the judiciary and similar elite categories of the population.

Who is preparing for what and with what type of discussion to arise and with what objective? Or is the objective already clear/decided and how was that decided, or if not decided, who will participate in that clarification regarding the goals?

Why is this not open or is there nothing really happening? Are “experts” being consulted and if so, are experts consulting people on the ground, that is, respecting the expertise of the poor and marginalised who often learn and know things that conventional experts do not know?

What is happening up there and what importance is placed on those who are below and doomed to drink polluted water, go hungry, jobless, without healthcare - unless something is done? Whether the national dialogue will contribute by its deliberations towards what needs to be done, I cannot guess. I do not worship actions. There is a place for thinking, imagining but also for actions guided by this thinking - often in acting, yielding results that will force a rethink.

Processes

Questions - from what one hears - 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 the 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?

How are ‘the people’ to be included in what has been motivated as an “inclusive” process?

But who are the people who form the national? A national dialogue implies involvement of the people, but it is not obvious who comprise the category referred to as “the people”. And does that word have the same meaning in every context?

If we are speaking of only citizens participating in the national dialogue, then it conflicts with the Freedom Charter that declares that South Africa belongs to all who live in it…, as quoted repeatedly in the speeches of Cyril Ramaphosa, motivating for a national dialogue. The Freedom Charter, admittedly, is not a legal document, but the Constitution, in its preamble, also refers to South Africa belonging to “all who live in it”. It has been noted in many of the speeches in relation to the GNU statement of intent, the inaugural speech of President Cyril Ramaphosa, and other interventions.

In all of these and in the Constitution, there’s reference to South Africa belonging to all who live in it, but also to citizenship. Can citizenship become a barrier to participation in the national dialogue?

Citizenship is a legal category which determines that people qualify for this, that and the other. It ought not to be a barrier to people participating in the well-being of communities of which they are already a part.

We are not talking about people who are seeking entry into South Africa. We are talking about people who have made South Africa their home and just do not have citizenship.

They have the same interests as everyone else in clean water, in sewage not running into the drinking water, in electricity being available to everyone, in schools being safe and providing high-quality education because their children are also attending many of these schools, and they ought to be, because they are allowed to be.

We are talking about a situation where, despite some being citizens and others not, they are all confronted by the same problems. It helps to have the experience of all the people in communities - citizens and non-citizens - participating in resolving the problems, and helps to build a sense of community.

This relates to and echoes the whole experience of South African history where the country was built, not just by South African labour, but by migrants from neighbouring states who were in the mines and worked in other areas of South African economic development. Some of them were here long before the apartheid government, many of them remain here and may not be citizens, but they belong here and ought to be part of any national dialogue.

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.