Much is at stake over the next two weeks. While last week’s no-budget debacle was not a shutdown crisis — the Public Finance Management Act provides for spending continuation — what happened is still a profound failure of democratic governance and political management.
That point may go missing amid the schadenfreude among the ANC’s partners in the national unity coalition government over the fact that the party can no longer dictate terms.
Political noise, alongside the need to control optics and score political points, has dominated SA politics for so long it has eviscerated political management and fundamental governance realities — like how national debt repayments of 22c of every taxpayer rand crowds out other spending, even on supposed priorities.
Describing the finance minister’s statutorily required tabling of the budget as a “presentation” — as if it were a PowerPoint speech to a board — is part of the spin intended to minimise the no-budget debacle, as is describing the historic cancellation as “unfortunate” in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Monday newsletter.
While correctly stating that disagreements in the multiparty cabinet were “understandable”, how this was handled ahead of budget day was nothing short of shoddy political management and inadequate constitutional governance commitment.
SA’s gold star for budget transparency has crashed and burnt. The proposed VAT hike to 17% was mired in secrecy under the guise of “market sensitivities”, as was the governing coalition partners’ seeming reluctance to insist on answers after getting hints of tax increases.
Even if the finance minister walks back the VAT proposal on March 12, the pencilled in date for budget 2.0, the damage to transparency and governance processes has been done.
It's not all on the finance minister or the political parties in cabinet though. It’s on parliament too, because it just rolled over despite its powers to amend, or reject, a budget in terms of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure & Related Matters Act.
At the very least the finance minister should have been made to deliver a statement to the House there and then, explaining why he couldn’t table the budget. Good political management would have ensured this, even though the be-so-good-and-postpone request came just 10 minutes before the finance minister was meant to be at the podium.
Astute political management would have ensured the budget was tabled in parliament — and then rejected after the traditional post-budget public hearings. This would have allowed for the ventilation of not only the VAT hike proposal but also why, despite the fiscal and economic pressures faced by the country, public servants are to receive an above-inflation salary increase that requires an extra R23.4bn to be found.
This is not a drawn-out process — it would have been wrapped up on March 5, when the National Assembly was scheduled to vote on the fiscal framework. If rejected, no other budgetary processes could unfold. At that stage the finance minister could have tabled a new budget, underscored by difficult but transparent and accountable processes, in line with constitutional principles.
Instead, behind-closed-doors conversations started both inside political parties and in the Treasury on the spending cuts needed to avoid a VAT hike. Consultations and deliberations; intensified efforts, collective consensus — these are touted as truly SA strengths, alongside resilience. But consultation held in secret drives fudginess and politicises everything. Reality and governance are distorted through political agendas, leaks and “whataboutism”.
Political noise and point-scoring rule, and overrule sober judgment. This is how the accountable practice of democracy is diminished — not to achieve innovation in governance, but for political convenience. Not owning up to the historic failure to table a budget and dressing it up as something positive because of consultative consensus-seeking, is putting lipstick on a pig.
The next 14 days have the potential to pull back from this low. But it will take sharp political management, commitment to constitutional governance and the guts to take hard, but necessary, decisions.
• Merten is a veteran political journalist specialising in parliament and governance.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.