11 August 2025 | 13:39 CAT
2-minute read

Heritage Foundations Withdraw from National Dialogue Amid Transparency and Planning Concerns

What was meant to be a unifying moment for South Africa’s fractured body politic now hangs in the balance. The National Dialogue, championed as a mechanism to address the country’s profound socio-political and economic challenges, has stumbled before the very first convention set to take place from 15–17 August 2025.

Last week, a coalition of legacy institutions—including the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, Chief Albert Luthuli, Desmond and Leah Tutu, FW de Klerk and Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundations, along with the Strategic Dialogue Group—publicly withdrew from the Preparatory Task Team (PTT) and the upcoming convention. They cited serious concerns, pointing to a shift away from citizen-led processes toward what they view as a government-driven agenda, compounded by rushed timelines and fragile logistical and financial frameworks.

In a joint statement, the foundations lamented that “the structure risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive – more performance than participation,” and insisted the National Dialogue must be citizen-led, not a government-led initiative.

President Cyril Ramaphosa, however, has insisted that the first convention will proceed as scheduled. He reiterated that logistical arrangements are in place, and that preparations are “on track,” with most of the roughly 750 invited organisations confirming their participation.

The estimated cost—hovering around R700 million—has drawn widespread scrutiny. Critics have labelled the figure “grotesque,” citing the nation’s pressing fiscal constraints.The Presidency clarified that the budget will largely rely on in-kind contributions, existing departmental budgets (notably NEDLAC and the Presidency), and strict compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)—with UNISA providing key facilities and services at no cost.

During this Week’s Debrief Report, Qaanitah Hunter reflected on the deeper implications of the fallout. She underscored how a state notorious for inefficiency, when placed at the helm of such a transformative project, could undermine its foundational goals. She cautioned against mismanagement, pointed out the glaring transparency gaps—especially around budget disclosure and accountability—and emphasised:

“What began as a citizen-led initiative has unfortunately in practice shifted towards government control.”

Hunter also highlighted a critical juncture in the process: insufficient clarity about ownership. Who will take accountability when things go wrong? she asked—be it the president, the deputy president, or another custodian. Her final concern mirrored that of the withdrawing foundations: “Dialogue cannot be built on haste.”

The core question remains: Will this National Dialogue become a genuine, inclusive blueprint for South Africa’s future—or merely a legacy project, dominated by political inertia and symbolism?

Supporters argue it’s a heroic attempt to rebuild trust across a divided nation. Critics warn it lacks legitimacy, practical planning, and the democratic ethos needed to deliver lasting change. As the clock ticks toward Thursday, all eyes are on whether this process will rise above partisan friction or further amplify it.

Listen to the Debrief Report on Sabaahul Muslim with Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat.