GNU Chaos: Political elites betray SA

The Labour Party, founded with a worker-focused mandate, has launched a legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue initiative, branding it unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and an attempt to sideline Parliament and the working class.

The party, led by Joseph Mathunjwa, President of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union filed an urgent High Court application on June 18, seeking to interdict the process. The party, argued that the estimated R700 million to R800m cost of the dialogue was “unjustifiable” amid the country’s deepening socio-economic crises.

However, their main interdict application which came before the court on Friday, was not heard. Instead, the court entertained interventions from several high-profile civil society foundations — including the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Strategic Dialogue Group, and the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, and Albert Luthuli Foundations.

“South Africa doesn’t need another elite summit behind closed doors,” said Labour Party's acting Secretary-General Lindi Mkhumbane. “We already have Parliament, Nedlac, and civil society platforms. What we don’t have is political will from the ruling elite to act on the people’s demands.”

The Labour Party’s court papers demand:

- A declaratory order that the National Dialogue is unconstitutional and irrational.

- An interdict blocking public funds for the process, including payments to the appointed “Eminent Persons Group.”

- A review of all executive decisions initiating the Dialogue.

The case has become a flashpoint between the Labour Party and a coalition of prominent civil society groups aligned with the state. On June 30, the aforementioned foundations were granted leave to intervene, defending the Dialogue.

Mathunjwa said: “These are not bystanders. These are political actors with deep ties to the post-apartheid ruling class. Their role isn’t to unite the nation, it’s to preserve an elite consensus forged behind closed doors.”

He accused the foundations of betraying the legacies of the leaders they represent: “The same communities (these leaders) stood for are ravaged by gender-based violence, unemployment, and poverty. Now these elites want a ‘dialogue’ instead of action.”

Mathunjwa also criticised the procedural manoeuvring surrounding the case, particularly the fact that the foundations submitted answering affidavits before being granted leave to intervene — a step he described as “arrogance, plain and simple”.

The Labour Party claims the Dialogue is a smokescreen for International Monetary Fund(IMF)-driven austerity policies, including Eskom privatisation and neoliberal reforms. “This is a rubber stamp for IMF instructions, nothing more,” Mathunjwa said. “If Parliament is functional, why create a new platform? This isn’t inclusion, it’s circumvention.”

The state’s delayed filing of its answering papers — missing key deadlines — has further fuelled suspicions of procedural stalling. “They missed the deadline, and now they’re bringing in reinforcements to stall,” Mathunjwa said.

“The President cannot wake up and decide to allocate R800m without parliamentary scrutiny,” Mkhumbane argued. “This is executive overreach masquerading as participation.” As the legal showdown looms, the Labour Party has called on ordinary South Africans to reject what it calls a “PR stunt” designed to distract from worsening conditions across the country.

“Rape, violence, and poverty don’t need a dialogue, they need action,” Mathunjwa declared. “We’re ready to meet them in court.”

Political analyst and author Nicholas Woode-Smith delivered a scathing critique of Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue, calling it a “vanity project” designed more to distract South Africans than to solve the country’s deepening crises.

Woode-Smith, managing editor of *The Rational Standard* and a senior associate at the Free Market Foundation, argues that the event — budgeted at R700 million — was emblematic of Ramaphosa’s leadership style.

“This is not going to be some miraculous meeting of the minds where all of South Africa’s many issues are solved,” Woode-Smith said. “On the contrary, Ramaphosa has set up the entire indaba to distract South Africans from the fact that he is completely underequipped to be our president.”

He added: “This entire affair could have been an email.”

According to Woode-Smith, the high cost of the summit reflects its true nature — a political exercise in self-aggrandisement rather than a genuine attempt at national healing or problem-solving.

“The initial cost of R700m is just a testament to the fact that this entire event is a vanity project,” he stated. “Ramaphosa is even taking advantage of condemnations of the quoted bill to try to act like he cares about cost-cutting. If he truly cared about saving money, he’d privatise Transnet and Eskom and stop bailing out the Post Office and SAA.”

He continued: “The fact that even a cent of taxpayer money is being spent on Ramaphosa’s little pow-wow is unacceptable.”

Woode-Smith questioned the very purpose of the National Dialogue, pointing out that there is no clear objective or roadmap for how it will lead to tangible change.

“It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,” he said. “Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?”.

“It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,” he said. “Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?”

He pointed to recent actions by the president as evidence of the ANC’s inability to share power responsibly.

“The ANC does not know how to share power,” Woode-Smith asserted. “At every turn, it has ignored the fact that it is a partner in government, and not a dictator. Ramaphosa firing the Democratic Alliance (DA) Minister Andrew Whitfield is just the most recent example. And no, his excuse is not sufficient. He is not a dictator who can unilaterally kick out ministers.”

He further said: “He is a partner in a coalition government who should be in constant dialogue with the other parties. He should try that dialogue before making it national.”

The analyst also criticised the ruling party’s legislative agenda, particularly the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill and expropriation without compensation, which he says were pushed through without meaningful consultation.

“Pushing through BELA and expropriation without compensation, while refusing to countenance any dissent are just the cherries on top of the farce that is pluralism in the GNU,” he said.

Woode-Smith also took aim at the composition of the so-called “Eminent Persons Group,” tasked with facilitating the dialogue.

“Meant to represent South Africa as leaders that reflect ‘the great diversity of our nation,’ this group is nowhere close to reflecting the true, political diversity of this country,” he argued.

He noted that the list includes “a few business leaders, trade unionists, religious leaders, researchers and politicians. But mostly just celebrities. Actors, writers, sportsmen, models.”

He asked: “Is this supposed to be a serious discussion to establish a way forward for our crumbling society, or a festival of shiny faces and shallow vibes?”

“There are no drastic alternative views to Ramaphosa’s dogma present in the list,” Woode-Smith said. “Only Lindiwe Mazibuko was a member of the opposition, and her departure from the DA was not cordial.”

He concluded: “Ramaphosa has crafted a list of yes-men, with some token business leaders who are likely to be too afraid to rock the boat to be too outspoken. This is not the guest list of a dialogue. It’s that of an echo chamber.”

In Woode-Smith’s view, a real national dialogue would involve voices across the ideological spectrum — including those who strongly oppose the ANC’s policies.

“A true national dialogue, with the aim of patching South Africa’s rifts and working towards solving our problems needs to include parties from all sides of the spectrum,” he said. “Most importantly, Ramaphosa’s enemies; he should have invited Ernst Roets. He should have invited Kallie Kriel.”

Meanwhile, former president Thabo Mbeki in a strongly worded open letter to DA leader John Steenhuisen who threatened to boycott the National Dialogue in retaliation to Whitfield being fired from his position as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.

Steenhuisen had issued an ultimatum: “Fire ANC ministers in 48 hours or else!” When Ramaphosa ignored it, the DA declared the dialogue “an ANC-run sham”. Helen Zille called it a “hollow exercise” that would collapse without the DA’s presence.

Mbeki responded: “The National Dialogue will have absolutely nothing to do with Ms Helen Zille’s fertile imagination. It is very good that, at last, Ms Helen Zille has openly expressed her eminently arrogant and contemptuous view of the masses.” The DA signed the GNU agreement committing to an “all-inclusive National Dialogue, Yet Zille now admits she was very opposed to it from the start.”

Mbeki said: “I would have found it logical if you and the DA had decided to withdraw from the GNU. Instead, you chose to sabotage a national conversation.”

SUNDAY TRIBUNE