What conversations are you involved in? What conversations are taking place, but you are not a part of? I am asking about conversations because they are the safest form of communication, or rather, they should be.
A conversation is defined as “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged”. This is a platform where everything that separates us does not matter – race, level of knowledge, position, etc. One would also assume that this form of communication requires those involved in it to have the ability to listen, have some form of emotional intelligence, and even be able to communicate their views clearly.
A lot of work goes behind having conversations that bring positive change, whether it be at a personal level, organizational level, or even at a national and international level.
Unfortunately, while many platforms are created in the guise of facilitating such conversation more often than not, they tend to take a different path. You also find that if someone engages in what is supposed to be a conversation with a paternalistic approach, the process loses its meaning. You often see a situation where one party is not free to engage because they think their input is subordinate to the inputs of the other party.
Be involved in conversations. If you are not involved in any, find one that you can be a part of.
There are different kinds of conversations. With some, we may not be granted the opportunity to participate in them, whereas it is up to us with others. Take, for instance, conversations that have to do with the country’s well-being: I believe we should all be involved in such conversations. While I have to acknowledge that it is not easy to have such, it is only through having them that we shall refine our ability.
In summary, conversations are a critical way of communicating, and we are obliged to have them. There are, however, prerequisites to having effective conversations. Some conversations are essential for us, such as conversations that have to do with national matters. We have to be involved and understand what it means to be involved, be clear as to what we have to bring to the table.
My current conversations………..
I am involved in many conversations and would like to have many more conversations. I am mainly engaged in cyber security and business, knowledge, social issues, etc.
My time is consumed by the cyber security conversation. I am not complaining, or maybe I should rather say a security conversation.
Over the past five years, I have spent time researching the field, and I continue to do so because of its ever-changing nature. I have also been privileged enough to be involved in different government departments and the private sector dealing with cyber security. It continues to be an exciting field. At the same time, when you look at how some countries like South Africa are dealing with it, you can’t help but worry.
As a side note, I just want to say that sometimes the people having the “conversation” are wrong. For various reasons, of course…
…But going back to the topic, I think we need to restart the conversation about cyber security, and we must not be shy to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with continuing, especially when the context requires a rethink.
Perhaps we should start by looking at the National Development Plan as a guiding document for what the country wants to achieve. I think we have not fully internalized the plan, and we are found wanting all the time. So, any conversation with a national bearing must first start with an understanding and an appropriate interpretation of the NDP.
I think we have missed an opportunity to do this, but all is not lost. Every conversation must be guided by some rules written and unwritten (e.g. relationship rules). Just like the constitution, whatever we plan to do, must not in any way be unconstitutional.
What we have experienced as a country is that we have written policies that we cannot implement. A lazy conclusion in many cases is that we have an implementation problem. We assume that the policies are not the problem; we are the problem because we fail to implement them. Once a policy has been signed, we stick to it, without ever considering that maybe the signed policy is not “implementable” or perhaps the policy itself is no longer relevant because the context has changed.
South Africa has the National Cybersecurity Policy Framework signed by Cabinet in 2012. This happens to be the only guide that deals with cybersecurity directly. Since its introduction, one would assume that much progress would have been made, and we would be much safer. However, we still have a cybercrime and cybersecurity bill in parliament, and I doubt it will be signed soon.
In this case, the conversation we should have answered the “so what now?” question. What does this reality mean for us as a country that is of late not doing very well economically? I know for a fact that there is a conversation taking place, or rather that has been taking place, but the same questions above should be raised. Are those involved in the conversation the right people? I think not. So, while we may not be directly involved in some of the conversations that have an impact on our lives, especially where such conversations are taking place on our behalf, we have to make sure that we know those who are representing us and be sure that they have what it takes to represent us as well.
Although this is a critical topic, it is not the only topic that we all should be having conversations about. Even in matters that we think we already have under control, we must always create platforms where we can evaluate if we are on the right track through conversations.
Let’s sit down and have a conversation. Are you prepared?
Bra G
Given SHINGANGE 