South Africa enters its fourth decade of democracy in the grip of a profound social, economic and political crisis. It is a crisis not simply of government performance, but of the broader post-apartheid settlement itself. Poverty, unemployment and inequality remain among the highest in the world. State institutions are dysfunctional and collapsing in key areas, from health services, schooling and Eskom, to the Passenger Rail Agency, to local municipalities. Crime, violence and social insecurity stalk everyday life.
At the same time, the ANC, once the hegemonic party of national liberation, has lost its political dominance. Its vote share has been in steady decline since 2004 and in the 2024 elections it dipped below 40%. It has been forced into a coalition—the Government of National Unity (GNU)—that includes old enemies like the Democratic Alliance (DA) and smaller parties representing narrow sectional interests.
But far from stabilising the political system, the GNU has sharpened contradictions. The arrangement represents a marriage of convenience among elites, not a programme to confront the crisis. It is paralysed by ideological disagreements and competing interests. The state remains incapable of providing basic services or restoring public trust. The economy continues to stagnate with no new direction.
It is in this context that the ANC and the Presidency have launched the so-called National Dialogue. It is presented as a forum for all South Africans—government, business, labour, civil society and political parties—to come together and find common ground. It is framed as the means to develop a “new consensus” or “social contract” to rescue the country.
The question is: can such a multi-class dialogue, in a fractured and polarised society like South Africa, produce real solutions to the crisis?
Can a multi-class dialogue produce a new social contract?
The deep class antagonisms that define South African society cannot be wished away by dialogue. And the sight of billionaire Cyril Ramaphosa disingenuously asking: “Why do so many people live in abject poverty and so few live lives of opulence?” is not a good sign. Illustration by Themba Siwela.
The idea of a National Dialogue appeals to many. It seems to offer hope that if we all sit around the table, reason will prevail, compromises will be struck, and a way forward will be charted. South Africa’s negotiated transition of the early 1990s is often invoked as an example of how dialogue can work.
But there are fundamental problems with this assumption. First, the transition period was a moment when the liberation movement was relatively dominant, commanding massive legitimacy. Social movements were strong, and capital sought stability and global reintegration after apartheid’s pariah years. That was the context for the compromises that were codified in the 1996 Constitution.
Today, the situation is different. Capital is far stronger and more globalised. The ANC is weak and discredited. Unions organise fewer workers and labour organisations have fragmented. Radical social movements that once challenged privatisation, evictions and neoliberalism are shells of what they were. In this imbalance, a “multi-class dialogue” risks becoming little more than a mechanism for the ruling elite to repackage neoliberal policies, stabilise their rule, and attempt to shore up ANC legitimacy.
The deep class antagonisms that define South African society cannot be wished away by dialogue. The jobs crisis, the collapse of public services, the commodification of basic needs, and extreme inequality are not products of poor communication or misunderstanding. They are rooted in the structure of the economy and the neoliberal policy choices made since 1996. A National Dialogue that avoids this reality cannot produce a genuine “new social contract.” And the sight of billionaire Cyril Ramaphosa disingenuously asking: “Why do so many people live in abject poverty and so few live lives of opulence?” is not a good sign.
The challenge for the Left
For the South African Left, the National Dialogue poses sharp challenges. On the one hand, it risks being little more than a public relations exercise for the ANC and its allies. On the other hand, outright dismissal or boycott carries dangers of marginalisation.
The truth is that the Left is in no position to ignore a process that will unfold across the country in thematic sessions and ward-based dialogues. The progressive trade union movement is deeply divided, with multiple federations competing for shrinking memberships. Cosatu remains tied to the ANC, despite decades of betrayals. Saftu, while independent, is weak and riven by internal tensions. Numsa’s political project has evaporated.
Even more worrying is the state of community-based social movements. Once vibrant organisations, like the Anti-Privatisation Forum and the Treatment Action Campaign, have collapsed, been co-opted, or retreated into survival mode. This weakness has created space for reactionary ideas to take hold among sections of the working class.
The rise of xenophobic currents is the most striking example. Operation Dudula and other vigilante-style formations exploit the real suffering of unemployed workers and the poor. They direct anger away from the capitalist class and the state towards foreign nationals. Xenophobia has become a toxic element of working-class ‘common sense’, showing just how far progressive ideas have lost ground.
In this context, to simply denounce the Dialogue as a waste of time and resources, as many activists instinctively do, risks further marginalising the Left. Worse, it allows reactionary voices to dominate unchallenged.
Think strategically, act tactically
Instead, the Left must adopt a tactical approach. The National Dialogue may be initiated by the ANC as part of its attempt to revive its fortunes, but it also creates an arena for contesting ideas.
Participating in the Dialogue should not mean endorsing it uncritically. Rather, it should be used as a platform to rebuild the organisation, sharpen political messages, and connect with broader layers of society. By engaging, Left organisations can put forward our analysis of the crisis, expose capital and the dysfunctional state, challenge neoliberal orthodoxies, and project an alternative vision of development.
Importantly, this must be linked to preparing for the upcoming local government elections. The Dialogue offers opportunities to reach communities beyond the limited circles the Left currently engages. It provides moments to test and refine popular education, slogans and demands.
Building a positive message
If the Left is to use the Dialogue effectively, it must develop a positive and compelling message. Central to this message must be the jobs crisis. The Left must be the political force that speaks to this reality with concrete proposals. These should include:
A publicly-driven mass housing programme: addressing the housing backlog while stimulating demand for building materials, bricks, cement, and related industries.
Rebuilding public transport, especially passenger rail: having affordable, safe transport is essential for working-class life and can spark industrial activity in steel, engineering and rolling stock manufacturing.
Redistribution of land and support for small-scale agriculture: providing land, seeds and farming inputs to promote rural livelihoods, food sovereignty, and agro-processing.
Expansion of community-based care and public health employment: meeting social needs while creating dignified jobs.
These are not utopian schemes. They are practical measures that can absorb large numbers of workers, stimulate downstream industries, and improve people’s lives.
Breaking with neoliberalism
However, such a programme cannot be achieved within the neoliberal framework that has dominated South Africa since 1996. Austerity—cutting social spending to appease investors—has strangled the state’s ability to act. Trade liberalisation has gutted domestic industries. Outsourcing has fueled corruption and destroyed the capacity of the state.
The Left must make the case clearly: breaking with neoliberalism is essential. If Donald Trump can impose tariffs under the banner of “America First,” there is no reason South Africa should remain shackled to the World Trade Organisation or the dictates of the International Monetary Fund. We need trade, industrial and financial policies that put the needs of South Africans in particular, and the Global South in general, first.
South Africa is one of the most unequal countries on earth, with obscene concentrations of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite. Progressive taxation—higher income and wealth taxes, taxing financial transactions, clamping down on illicit capital flight—can generate the resources needed.
Towards strategic engagement
Using the National Dialogue tactically also means recognising the urgent need for cadre development. Without a layer of organisers, educators and activists armed with clear analysis and political skills, the Left will remain weak and reactive.
Activists must be equipped not only to critique neoliberalism but to present coherent alternatives, in language that resonates with ordinary people. This means linking abstract policies to the lived experience of communities—whether it is the cost of taxis, the collapse of clinics, or the despair of youth unemployment.
The National Dialogue is incapable of addressing the structural roots of inequality, unemployment and state collapse. But for the Left, ignoring the Dialogue would be a mistake. It can be a platform to rebuild an organisation, sharpen messages, and connect with communities. It can help prepare the ground for local government elections and the long struggle to reconstitute a militant, class-conscious workers’ movement.
By putting forward a bold, practical and socialist message—jobs through public works, housing, transport and land reform; breaking with neoliberalism; and taxing the rich—the Left can begin to turn the tide.
