On 27 October 2025, Harvard University’s Herbert C. Kelman Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution hosted the virtual talk “Sharing the South African Dialogue Experience: How it Prevented a Civil War and its Possible Application in Today’s World of Polarization and Conflict,” featuring Roelf Meyer and moderated by Donna Hicks. Meyer traced how South Africa avoided civil war through an inclusive, trust-building dialogue and reflected on how those methods can guide today’s polarized societies.

Opening and context

Welcoming participants from around the world, Hicks noted the seminar’s co-sponsorship by the Program on Negotiation and the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and introduced Roelf Meyer, a lawyer and former Minister of Defense and of Constitutional Affairs who served as chief negotiator for South Africa’s National Party government alongside the ANC’s Cyril Ramaphosa. Meyer joined from Pretoria and emphasized he would share lessons from his direct involvement in the six-year transition that began with Nelson Mandela’s release and culminated in a new constitution.

From the brink to negotiations

Meyer recalled late-1980s South Africa as widely expected to descend into civil war amid nationwide unrest and a prolonged state of emergency. Two forces opened a path to talks: comprehensive international sanctions—capped by the 1986 U.S. legislation—and mounting internal upheaval. Within months of taking office, F.W. de Klerk released Mandela, and the sides moved from “talks about talks” to dialogue and then negotiations. Meyer added that Harvard’s Roger Fisher had offered to facilitate at the outset; both sides declined to keep ownership internal, a decision Fisher later praised when documenting the process.

What made it work

According to Meyer, three elements underpinned success. First, inclusivity: more than twenty parties, major and minor, had a seat at the table so no constituency felt excluded. Second, relationships and trust: adversaries built personal ties strong enough to weather crises. Third, ownership: the parties themselves resolved impasses without outside mediators, phoning counterparts directly when talks stalled. The breakthrough interim constitution in late 1993 ended apartheid and set democratic rules; as Meyer put it that night, he felt he had “liberated” himself by choosing the national interest over factional gain.

Power-sharing and its aftermath

The settlement created a Government of National Unity intended to run five years, blending the outgoing order with the new democratic majority. Meyer argued that the National Party’s withdrawal after two years was a serious mistake that weakened reconciliation and left the ANC governing alone for decades. He linked extended single-party control to rising corruption and democratic backsliding. Change arrived in 2024, when the ANC fell below 50 percent and a coalition of ten parties formed, with the ANC still the largest partner.

Leadership, institutions, and the “center”

A durable “middle ground” coalesced under Mandela from 1994 into the 2000s. Meyer said this center frayed after Jacob Zuma’s rise (elected ANC leader in 2007, president in 2009), citing authoritarian tendencies and entrenched corruption that eroded democratic culture. South Africa’s Constitutional Court, however, consistently upheld the rights-based order born of the transition. Since 2018, President Cyril Ramaphosa has worked to repair damage, but Meyer described the recovery as partial amid slow growth, unemployment, organized crime, and factionalism within law enforcement.

A call for renewed national dialogue

Looking ahead, Meyer urged a fresh, society-wide dialogue—beyond party politics—to rebuild a broad social compact among civil society, the state, business, labor, and communities. Re-centering the national interest, he said, could again generate a unifying middle ground capable of tackling today’s crises.

Global reflections

From his post-political work advising in conflicts worldwide, Meyer identified religion and ethnicity as longstanding drivers of violence, and “greed”—for wealth and power—as a dominant contemporary source, visible in the Great Lakes region and Sudan. He described recent advisory work in Bangladesh after last year’s popular uprising, stressing a consistent lesson from South Africa: outside experts can share experience, but lasting settlements require local ownership.

Q&A highlights

In discussion with Hicks and attendees, Meyer affirmed that acknowledgment was essential to healing, pointing to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where he personally expressed regret for his past support of apartheid and received a public embrace from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. On fears of revenge, he credited Mandela’s lack of bitterness with easing the transition. He emphasized that de Klerk and Mandela each entered talks without preconditions, enabling momentum. Addressing polarization and disinformation, Meyer said South Africa had long been organized around a destructive paradigm of superiority versus inferiority; the democratic settlement replaced it with a rights-based constitution enforced by independent courts. On process design, he noted that inclusivity does not mean every party stays at the table continuously—at critical moments, some left and later returned—but the seats remained open so outcomes could be broadly representative.

---

The Herbert C. Kelman Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution convenes leading scholars and practitioners to explore pragmatic strategies for addressing violent conflict and polarization. Through public talks and interdisciplinary dialogue, it advances negotiation practice, peacebuilding, and human rights–centered policy with actionable lessons for communities and decision-makers.

The Conf is a platform that reports on scholarly conferences, symposia, roundtables, book talks, and other academic events. It is managed by a group of students from leading American and European universities and is published by Alma Mater Europaea University, Location Vienna.