Half the Nation, Half the Story: Will South Africa’s National Dialogue Truly Hear Women?

A new table — but will the seats be equal?

When President Cyril Ramaphosa launched the National Dialogue initiative in Pretoria earlier this year, he framed it as a democratic reset: an open forum where South Africans could grapple with entrenched crises — from violent crime to economic exclusion.

“This dialogue must be a platform where all voices are heard, where solutions are shaped together, and where the future is written by all who call South Africa home,” Ramaphosa said in his February opening address.

Among the most urgent voices pushing to be heard are those of women — half the nation’s population, disproportionately affected by poverty, unemployment, and gender‑based violence (GBV). The question, as civil society leaders warn, is whether this “inclusive” space will actually deliver structural change for them.

The numbers women cannot ignore

The statistics remain grim. According to the 2024/25 SAPS Crime Stats, South Africa records an average of 146 reported sexual offences every day — a figure activists insist masks significant under‑reporting. The Statistics SA Quarterly Labour Force Survey for Q1 2025 found women’s unemployment at 37.8%, compared to 30.4% for men.

For many, those figures are not abstractions but lived reality. As Sonke Gender Justice co‑executive director Bafana Khumalo notes:

“If you want to know what keeps women out of the economy, it’s the intersection of unpaid care work, unsafe public spaces, and the lingering wage gap.”

History’s echo: from 1956 to now

The stakes are not lost on those steeped in history. On 9 August 1956, more than 20,000 women marched to the Union Buildings to protest apartheid pass laws — a seminal act now commemorated as Women’s Day. Yet, nearly 70 years later, campaigners argue that commemorations too often obscure the unfinished business of that generation’s fight.

Dr. Nthabiseng Moleko, an academic and former commissioner on the Commission for Gender Equality, draws the line clearly:

“Symbolic inclusion is not the same as structural transformation. If the national conversation does not integrate women’s economic agency, we will replicate exclusion in a more polite form.”

A seat at the table — or on the margins?

The National Dialogue Framework promises gender parity in its stakeholder forums, but implementation is patchy. Women’s groups from rural provinces like Eastern Cape and Limpopo have complained of poor outreach and limited travel support to attend sessions.

In May, the Rural Women’s Movement — representing more than 50,000 women farmers and community leaders — issued a statement warning that “dialogue without representation entrenches the urban bias in policymaking.”
The call is familiar: fund grassroots participation, not just invitations.

The GBV elephant in the room

Despite government commitments, including the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, progress is slow. The latest Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities progress report notes persistent under‑funding of shelters, uneven police responsiveness, and delays in the rollout of GBV courts.

Lisa Vetten, a researcher with Wits University’s Gender Equality Unit, cautions that unless the Dialogue directly addresses these failures, “we risk producing eloquent communiqués while women continue to die.”

Economic voice, economic power

In the parallel Presidential Employment Stimulus review, less than half of the beneficiaries in certain streams were women, despite policy aims to close the gap. Micro‑enterprise funding programmes remain under‑subscribed by women, often due to barriers in meeting collateral requirements or accessing networks.

Groups like Businesswomen’s Association of South Africa have proposed binding quotas in state procurement for women‑owned businesses, modelled on existing BEE targets. Whether such measures will be on the Dialogue’s agenda remains uncertain.

Intersectionality matters

The challenge is not just “women” as a bloc but the layered realities of race, class, geography, and disability. Professor Pumla Gqola writes that any meaningful inclusion must “acknowledge how histories of dispossession shape present exclusions” — an intersectional lens too often missing from high‑level policy debates.

Will this Dialogue be different?

South Africa has held dialogues before — from the post‑TRC moral regeneration forums to summit‑style gatherings on jobs or crime. Many ended with glossy reports but limited follow‑through.

Thuli Madonsela — former Public Protector and founder of the Social Justice Hub — argues that the measure of success is not attendance lists but budget lines:

“A National Dialogue that produces no shifts in fiscal priorities is a talk shop. If we’re serious, the budget for gender justice must grow in line with the rhetoric.”

Potential fault lines

• Tokenism vs. influence: Ensuring women’s inclusion in drafting committees, not just plenaries.
• Urban bias: Bridging the participation gap for rural and township women.
• Accountability: Publishing minutes, commitments, and budgets in accessible formats.
• Political will: Whether cabinet ministers will adopt and champion Dialogue‑derived proposals.

Signs of hope

Some innovations are emerging. The Western Cape pilot sessions incorporated digital platforms allowing women to phone in or text contributions in their home language, later translated for facilitators. The National Youth Development Agency has committed to fund travel stipends for young women activists to attend Dialogue events.

Beyond the room

Experts caution that the Dialogue must connect with existing reform processes — from GBV court roll‑outs to economic stimulus programmes — to avoid siloed outcomes.

“National dialogues are moments,” says Khumalo of Sonke Gender Justice. “Real change happens when those moments plug into movements.”

Hearing half the nation

The President’s framing of the National Dialogue as a collective act of nation‑building is compelling. But if the voices, stories, and priorities of South African women are diluted in the process, the promise will remain unfulfilled.

Women have marched before. They have testified before commissions. They have organised in unions, stokvels, and shelters. The Dialogue will be judged not by how eloquently it hears them, but by how boldly it acts on what they’ve been saying for decades.