National Dialogue: A Promising Start or a Presidential Legacy Project?
Viable News Team 
South Africa’s political landscape is once again abuzz, this time not with scandal or party infighting, but with what could be the beginning of a new chapter in the nation’s democratic journey. The National Dialogue, launched during a widely publicised convention in Pretoria this past weekend, has sparked both hope and skepticism in equal measure.
The two-day gathering, held on Friday and Saturday, brought together hundreds of delegates from civil society, politics, faith-based organizations, youth groups, academia, and the private sector. Framed as a citizen-led initiative, the event was designed to spark introspective conversations about the country’s future and the structural challenges that continue to hold back its progress.
But while the tone was one of inclusivity and unity, not all are convinced of the authenticity behind the effort—particularly when it comes to the role of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
A Nation in Conversation But at Whose Direction?
In his opening address, President Ramaphosa set the tone for the dialogue by posing a series of probing questions to the nation. With a solemn tone, he asked:
“Why do women live in fear of men? Why do so many people remain trapped in poverty? Why are opportunities still so limited for black children? Why are women still paid less than men?”
The speech was received with polite applause and some praise, but also a growing murmur of discontent from those who believe these are questions Ramaphosa himself should be answering—rather than simply asking.
Among the most vocal critics is Mondli Makhanya, veteran journalist and editor-in-chief of City Press, who penned a scathing editorial that has since gone viral across news platforms and social media.
In his piece, Makhanya accuses the president of attempting to rebrand the National Dialogue as a personal legacy project, warning that the process risks becoming more about political theatre than transformative change.
“Ramaphosa is on a mission to revive his reputation as one of the midwives of the Constitution,” Makhanya writes, “while also affirming his legacy as the leader who led the nation into ‘introspection’. But for the dialogue to have any legitimacy, it cannot be seen as the Cyril Ramaphosa show.”
Ego vs. Nation: The Legacy Trap
Makhanya’s editorial dives deep into the political psychology of President Ramaphosa, suggesting that the president’s eagerness to be seen as a unifier and a statesman might be undermining the very process he is trying to promote.
He notes that the president’s tendency to centralize moral leadership has turned what should be a national, bottom-up conversation into a top-down exercise in public relations. According to Makhanya, true national introspection cannot take place under the shadow of a single individual’s ego, no matter how well-intentioned.
Rather than being the face of the dialogue, Makhanya argues that Ramaphosa should step back and allow the appointed “panel of eminent persons” to lead the initiative independently, ensuring it reflects the voice of the people—not just the vision of the presidency.
Why This Dialogue Matters
Despite the criticism, there’s no denying the urgency of the issues raised during the convention. The systemic inequalities that continue to plague South African society gender-based violence, economic disparity, racial injustice, youth unemployment, and the erosion of public trust are problems that no single administration can solve alone.
The idea of a National Dialogue is not new. Similar calls have echoed throughout South Africa’s democratic history, often in moments of crisis. But this iteration comes at a time when faith in political leadership is at a historic low, and when many feel that the gains of the post-apartheid era are slowly being reversed.
Supporters of the initiative argue that structured, inclusive conversations can serve as a catalyst for a new social compact, giving citizens a greater stake in shaping public policy and national values. But that promise is contingent on credibility and critics like Makhanya fear that credibility is already being compromised by political overreach.
Looking Ahead: Will the Dialogue Deliver?
For the National Dialogue to succeed, several key shifts must take place. First, the process must be depoliticized—it cannot be seen as the pet project of a sitting president, especially one whose own administration faces ongoing criticism for inertia and missed reform opportunities.
Second, the outcomes of the dialogue must be actionable, not merely symbolic. Citizens are weary of consultations that lead nowhere. South Africa’s political history is littered with ambitious initiatives that ultimately faded into irrelevance due to lack of follow-through or political will.
Finally, transparency and inclusivity must remain non-negotiable. The panel overseeing the process must reflect the country’s diverse experiences and grievances, not just voices palatable to the political elite.
Conclusion: Turning Introspection Into Action
South Africa finds itself at a crossroads socially, politically, and economically. The National Dialogue presents a unique opportunity to redefine what kind of country we want to be. But that opportunity will be lost if the process is co-opted by ego, legacy-building, or partisan agendas.
Mondli Makhanya’s caution is well-timed. For this dialogue to be meaningful, President Ramaphosa must move from centre stage to the sidelines, enabling ordinary South Africans through their chosen representatives and facilitators to take ownership of the nation’s future.
A true national dialogue is not about who asks the questions. It’s about who answers them and whether those answers lead to real change.
Written by [Viable Media]
Johannesburg, South Africa
August 2025
About the Author
