by Paul Maritz, Director at Free SA
Quick question, dear reader: who, praytell, is the Minister in the Presidency for Women, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities? Or the Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation? How about the Minister of Social Development? If you caught yourself hesitating, even just for a moment, don’t feel too bad – you are not alone.
Even though these individuals and their freight trains full of staff wield immense influence over the state’s finances and policies, most of us have no idea who they are, or more importantly, what exactly they do… The unavoidable fact staring us in the face is that the South African cabinet is an overgrown, expensive, and largely ineffective behemoth, bloated with ministerial posts that serve no real interest other than political patronage, a fact made worse by the arrival of the GNU, with ANC infighting for a seat at the table having to now make room for even more would-be ministers and deputy ministers.
South Africa has one of the most oversized and costly cabinets in the world. The current GNU executive comprises a staggering 77 members—34 ministers and 43 deputy ministers—who collectively cost taxpayers more than R1 billion per year in salaries, benefits, and VIP protection. This is a structure that prioritises quantity over quality, patronage over efficiency, and bureaucracy over effectiveness.
Each minister earns nearly R2.7 million annually, while their deputies pocket R2.2 million. While these amounts are high to start with, they are only really understood once they are compared to the socio-economic realities of the average South African. The minimum wage in South Africa currently stands at around R4 500 per month, meaning that a single cabinet minister earns more in a year than a minimum-wage worker would in over 50 years. This salary gap is not just an abstraction—it reflects the very real disconnect between political elites and the ordinary South African struggling to make ends meet in an economy battered by load-shedding, high unemployment, and stagnant growth, all of which are problems that political competency and will should have solved a decade ago.
The sheer scale of South Africa’s cabinet is difficult to justify. When compared to other global economies—particularly BRICS partners—our executive is an outlier in terms of both size and cost. Brazil, a nation with over 214 million people, gets by with 37 ministers. India, with a population of over 1.4 billion, has just 30. Even China, the world’s second-largest economy and a nation of 1.4 billion people, operates with a more modest 37 ministers. The United States, with a GDP almost 60 times the size of South Africa’s, has a cabinet of just 24. The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and even Kenya have far leaner governance structures, all managing to govern effectively without the excesses of South Africa’s executive.
Because we at Free SA believe that the taxpayer is overburdened and because we want to see South Africa prosper, we propose that the cabinet should comprise a total of 26 members. Alongside the president and deputy president there should be no more than 12 ministers, each with one deputy. 23 fewer ministers means R62.1 million in savings, and 31 fewer deputy ministers amount to a salary bill with another R68.2 annual decrease.
This R130 million per year is a start, but it really is only the tip of the savings iceberg. Above all, the sheer amount spent on renting and maintaining massive office buildings in Pretoria and elsewhere, is reason enough for the taxpayer to insist on slashing the amount of government departments. In the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure spent over R13 billion on private leases. A leaner, more task oriented government will see this figure drop drastically. Ministerial budgets, support staff, and VIP protection services also inflate the true cost of this overgrown bureaucracy.
The Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE) estimates that a streamlined executive could save the country around R5 billion annually – we think it could be much more. If the assumption is made that 50% of total national jobs were created for political purposes and not because they were necessary, the resulting decline in rental demand would save the taxpayer at least R6.5 billion per annum. Adding some of the above costs would bring the savings closer to eleven figures. In a country facing service delivery crises, failing infrastructure, and a widening budget deficit, such savings are not just desirable—they are fiscally necessary.
Its not just about the money
Beyond financial prudence, there is a compelling case for trimming the cabinet in the interest of governance efficiency, an international trend that the ANC led GNU can, much like satellite internet, only avoid temporarily. Corporate governance studies consistently show that bloated leadership structures stifle decision-making, create confusion around accountability, and slow down policy implementation. When too many decision-makers hold overlapping responsibilities, bureaucratic inertia sets in, and meaningful reform becomes nearly impossible. South Africa’s cabinet is no exception. A smaller executive would create clearer lines of accountability, force ministers to perform, and reduce the redundancy of departments that often work against each other rather than in concert.
One need only look at the recent governance failures to see how an unwieldy executive hampers progress. From the energy crisis to the decay of municipal service delivery, the inability to make decisive policy interventions stems in part from too many ministers with competing agendas and a lack of clear accountability. When failures occur, blame is diffused across multiple departments, and no one is truly held responsible. This paralysis is not an accident, it is a feature of a system designed to serve political convenience rather than national efficiency.
Moreover, reducing the cabinet would go some way to restoring the international credibility of the government. A smaller, high-performing executive would signal to both citizens and investors that South Africa is serious about growth, reform and governance. Countries like New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland demonstrate that leaner cabinets lead to quicker decision-making, more streamlined policy implementation, and a culture of accountability. There is no logical reason why South Africa should not follow suit.
We are not proposing chaos and anarchy, we simply believe that South Africa’s executive is packed with positions that should have been devolved to provinces, merged, or scrapped entirely long ago, and that this will not harm governance—indeed, it would most likely improve it.
Devolve to Provinces
Certain ministries are already redundant, as they oversee functions that are essentially already being run by MEC’s at the provincial level. Making this official would allow for more localised decision-making and a reduction in redundant layers of bureaucracy. These include:
Minister of Basic Education – In a country as linguistically and culturally diverse as South Africa, education policy and implementation should be handled provincially or even lower. Key decisions on day-to-day issues should be entrusted to School Governing Bodies in their entirety. The current centralisation stifles flexibility and efficiency.
Minister of Employment and Labour – Labour market challenges differ across provinces, and national intervention is often heavy-handed and ineffective. By allowing MEC’s freedom to do what is necessary for their unique economies, the current “one-size-fits-none” approach can be avoided.
Minister of Health – Provincial health departments already oversee hospitals and clinics, so why maintain a national department that only adds an extra bureaucratic layer and a few hefty lines to the budget?
Minister of Police – Crime is deeply regional, and law enforcement should be managed at the provincial level, akin to federal models elsewhere. The nationally governed approach has clearly failed.
Straight-up Closure
Some ministries exist purely for political patronage or perform roles that could be absorbed by others. These should be eliminated entirely:
Minister of the Presidency – The Deputy President can handle whatever executive coordination this role entails.
Minister in the Presidency for Women, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities – These issues should be addressed through broader social development strategies, not a separate ministry. If anything, the current pigeonholing of universal issues is misinformed. Women, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities are to be included and accommodated by each department in their own unique way.
Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies – Private companies lead digital innovation; government interference only slows it down.
Minister of Higher Education – Hand over its few essential legislative functions to the Deputy President. The Vice Chancelors have a much better idea of how a university should be run than the SACP delegate that usually gets this position.
Minister of Human Settlements – Housing development should fall under Public Works and Infrastructure.
Minister of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation – This is a redundant function that should be handled within the Presidency’s administrative office and by the DG of each department.
Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation – Private industry and universities already drive this sector. Funding of strategic projects by the treasury will bring healthy competition and a profit-driven, effective scientific sector, much in the way that SpaceX and Blue Origin compete for NASA contracts.
Minister of Small Business Development – If an economy is functioning properly, you don’t need a ministry to “develop” small businesses. Deregulate, and let business thrive.
Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition – Based on results, surely anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics can understand that this department is failing. It is failing because its main purpose is to regulate trade and industry, and the continuous regulation of trade and industry diminishes its efficacy. To the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Competition we would like to repeat Scar’s famous words to Simba: Run away, and never return.
Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources – This department should be closed entirely, and all mining and energy industries should be privatised and deregulated, with high penalties for illegal activity. Basic regulation, good discipline, and freedom within the bounds of decency – no good company needs more guidance than that. Government interference in these sectors has historically led to corruption, mismanagement, and stagnation.
Consolidation of Ministries
Several ministries perform overlapping roles and should be merged into stronger, more effective departments:
Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure should absorb:
Minister of Electricity and Energy
Minister of Water and Sanitation
Minister of Transport
Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development
A single, powerful infrastructure ministry would streamline decision-making and reduce inefficiencies. This absorption will naturally coincide with downsizing, bringing even more savings.
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development should absorb Correctional Services, as prison administration should fall under the broader justice system, not a separate entity.
Minister of Sports, Arts, and Culture should merge with:
Minister of Tourism
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment
Minister of Agriculture
A combined “Culture, Tourism, and Environmental Affairs” ministry would be more effective and cost-efficient than multiple, siloed departments.
A Government That Works, Not a Government That Bloats
The simple truth is that too many ministries exist to accommodate political allies, and not because they are necessary for governance. South Africa cannot afford to maintain an executive structure designed for political patronage rather than national progress. Cutting down the cabinet is not just desirable, it is essential.
We don’t talk about it much, but South Africa is very dependent on the goodwill of strong economies. AGOA and BRICS benefits have propped up an economy that, without it, might not have come this far without serious internationally enforced austerity. With the goodwill of large economies clearly coming to an end, as these countries become ever more inwardly focussed, South Africa should be proactive with regards to our fiscal sustainability.
To those who defend the status quo, our challenge is simple: Justify it. Honestly explain why South Africa, with its shrinking economy, growing unemployment, and mounting debt, requires more ministers per capita than the United States, China, or the United Kingdom.
Not one word written here was meant in jest, at Free SA we sincerely care about peace, stability and prosperity for all. Those who challenge our position should accept our bona fides and we will accept theirs as they explain why taxpayers should foot the bill for dozens of ministers whose names and purposes they do not even know, as they clarify why South Africa should continue to tolerate an executive that absorbs billions while delivering so little.
