President Cyril Ramaphosa’s call for a national dialogue offers South Africa a crucial opportunity to reshape the future.
Yet history cautions us that without rigorous checks and balances, such initiatives risk becoming hollow spectacles – dominated by elites, derailed by violence, or lost in endless debate.
This dialogue must transcend political theatre. It demands structure, enforceability and genuine inclusivity, along with safeguards that ensure tangible progress.
In this regard, SA has much to learn from the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa), which laid the foundation for a new democratic order but had dangerous flaws, including that key decisions were confined to negotiations behind closed doors, thereby marginalising ordinary citizens.
There were also the sunset clauses aimed at securing peace, but which also preserved apartheid-era privileges, delaying economic justice that the country yearns for to this day.
If the proposed national dialogue repeats these mistakes, allowing political and business elites to steer the discussions while playing lip service to public participation, it will collapse under the weight of its own irrelevance.
A dialogue without accountability is merely performance.
There are also Rwanda’s post-genocide dialogues to learn from, whereby stability was achieved through enforced unity.
In that case, the Grassroots Gacaca courts fostered reconciliation, but political dissent was systematically suppressed – meaning economic progress came at the cost of freedoms.
South Africa cannot – and must not – mirror this authoritarian approach.
On the other hand, South Africa can still learn from Rwanda’s structured and outcome-driven model.
The challenge lies in balancing inclusivity with accountability, ensuring agreements translate into action without silencing legitimate opposition.
To this end, independent oversight is non-negotiable. The process must be facilitated by neutral bodies. Transparency, through live-streamed sessions and public records, is essential to prevent elite manipulation.
Secondly, grassroots participation must be prioritised. For example, provincial and local dialogues could feed into national discussions, avoiding Codesa’s top-heavy approach.
Digital platforms, from SMS polls to online forums, can amplify ordinary citizens’ voices, ensuring the agenda reflects public needs, not political interests.
Most importantly, agreements must be binding, not symbolic. Accords should carry legal weight, with clear deadlines – like land reform within five years – and an independent monitoring council to track progress and hold leaders accountable.
On the other hand, conflict mitigation mechanisms are critical. A multi-party peace committee could prevent violence from sabotaging talks, while judicial oversight by the Constitutional Court would arbitrate disputes fairly.
Finally, the powerful cannot wield veto power. Sunset clauses must not shield corrupt or apartheid-era interests, as they did in 1994. Economic justice cannot be bargained away to appease political or business elites.
South Africa cannot endure another theoretical exercise. The dialogue must bind leaders to their promises, centralise marginalised voices, and deliver measurable change.
Without these safeguards, Ramaphosa’s initiative risks becoming another performative gesture, masking cracks as the foundation crumbles.
The time for talk has passed. What South Africa needs now are structured, enforceable, people-driven solutions. A dialogue built on accountability, not just aspiration, is the only kind worth having.
Will this be the moment SA turns rhetoric into reality, or will history record it as another missed opportunity? The answer hinges on whether checks and balances are treated as the very pillars of success.
• Lekota is a veteran journalist
