The national dialogue, former president Thabo Mbeki’s brainchild, was sold to the nation as a process that would gather the country at the table to share solutions and bridge the divide. It became a widely accepted way of affording South Africans a chance to confront the country’s deepening crisis free of political interference — except it needed politicians to give it a thumbs up and pay for the process.
The fear of political interference suffocating the intentions of this rare and unifying moment has come: the Thabo Mbeki Foundation has pulled out of the dialogue with several others due to a number of issues, but particularly control and financing of the talk shop. In this latest episode in the long-running duel between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mbeki, these uncertainties hang over whether the dialogue will take place in mid-August as projected.
To understand how we got here, let’s recall that these tensions did not start with the argument over budgets, dates and the “citizen-led” principle. Their roots run deep. Since his return to public life after the end of his presidency, Mbeki has often positioned himself as a public conscience, challenging the ANC leadership when he believes it has strayed from principle. His relationship with Ramaphosa, once cordial, has been punctuated by sharp public disagreements.
When the Phala Phala scandal broke in 2022, Mbeki was one of the few ANC heavyweights to openly criticise the party for shielding Ramaphosa. In a pointed letter to Deputy President Paul Mashatile, he lamented the ANC’s instruction to its MPs to block further investigation, accusing the leadership of undermining accountability. In 2023, he again took aim, this time over the collapse of the much-heralded “social compact” between government, business and labour, calling it a failure of follow-through.
Each of these interventions has widened the rift, feeding a mutual wariness that has now spilled into open confrontation. Instead, the dialogue is the casualty. The five foundations that withdrew this week, including the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation and the Tutu Legacy Foundation, accuse the government of hijacking the process and replacing grassroots leadership with state control. Mbeki’s camp says the presidency unilaterally announced the August 15 launch date, forcing preparations into a frantic rush and ignoring warnings that the event would lack the depth and readiness needed to make it credible.
From Mbeki’s vantage point, a government-led launch risks turning the dialogue into an ANC-branded showcase, timed suspiciously close to the 2024 elections, rather than the citizen-driven process originally envisioned. The foundations argue that without adequate preparation and without clear plans for the “real” work of sectoral and community dialogues that should follow, the first convention will be little more than symbolism.
Yet Mbeki’s move is not without political theatre of its own. The timing of the withdrawal, mere days before the launch, suggests an element of brinkmanship. He had praised the dialogue during the ANC’s NEC meeting earlier in the week, giving no hint of discontent. To then reverse course in dramatic fashion plays well for those eager to cast him as a principled elder statesman, but raises questions about whether this was more about winning a power struggle than saving the process.
Mbeki wants to protect the purity of his idea and retain the status of its architect. Ramaphosa wants to demonstrate decisive leadership and keep the process under the state’s stewardship. Neither seems willing to publicly concede ground, and in the crossfire, the public’s faith in the dialogue and in political leadership more broadly is being eroded.
Ramaphosa’s stance, on the other hand, has been equally rigid. He flatly refused to postpone the launch, arguing the opening session was merely about logistics and planning, and that criticisms could be addressed in subsequent conventions. He also pushed back against the foundations’ initial R853m budget, cutting it to R452m and insisting that public funds be managed under Treasury rules.
For Ramaphosa, this was about keeping the process moving and avoiding accusations of waste, but his refusal to bend risks alienating key civil society partners and confirming suspicions that the government wants to control the narrative from the outset.
The reality is that both men are allowing ego and legacy to overshadow the purpose of the dialogue. Mbeki wants to protect the purity of his idea and retain the status of its architect. Ramaphosa wants to demonstrate decisive leadership and keep the process under the state’s stewardship. Neither seems willing to publicly concede ground, and in the crossfire, the public’s faith in the dialogue and in political leadership more broadly is being eroded.
Citizens do not care whose name is etched into the history books as the “father” of the national dialogue. They care about whether the process is real, inclusive and capable of producing meaningful change in a country battered by unemployment, corruption, crime and collapsing public services. The spectacle of two ANC presidents, past and present, turning a platform for national healing into a proxy war for political dominance is not only unedifying, it is dangerous.
In a country already sceptical about political promises, a botched or hollow dialogue will only deepen disillusionment. If the launch is remembered not for opening a door to frank and fearless discussion, but for marking the moment two presidents chose prestige over partnership, it will poison the process before it begins.
South Africa does not need another chapter in the Ramaphosa—Mbeki rivalry. It needs leadership humble enough to share the stage, brave enough to allow uncomfortable truths, and wise enough to remember that this is not about their reputations, but about the survival and renewal of the country itself. Until that humility arrives, the national dialogue will remain hostage to ego, and the nation will be the poorer for it.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.