Beyond the noise: A sober and rigorous assessment of criticism of the Sona:
Every State of the Nation Address (SONA) in South Africa has become a platform not only for democratic accountability but also for predictable criticisms. Long before the President rises to speak, rebuttals have been drafted, headlines framed and conclusions drawn. By the time the applause fades in the National Assembly, criticism is already rehearsed and just waiting for the cameras. This year was no different.
Yet intellectual honesty requires that criticism be weighed carefully. Which objections are substantive and grounded in fact? Which ones are ideological contestations masquerading as technical critique? And which ones are simply recycled lines from prior years, deployed irrespective of what was actually said? A sober analysis reveals a far more nuanced picture than the political theatre suggests.
This article critically assesses the key criticisms levelled at the State of the Nation Address.
The “no new ideas” critique
One of the most common criticisms is that the President merely “repeated old promises” and offered “nothing new.” This argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of governance. Structural reform, infrastructure expansion, energy transition, industrial development and state capability are not once-off or one-year events. They are multi-year undertakings.
When the President reaffirmed commitments to stabilise energy supply, accelerate logistics reform, strengthen water security, deepen industrialisation and expand social protection, he was not recycling rhetoric. He was reinforcing continuity in a reform agenda that is, by design, cumulative.
Countries that successfully reform do so through persistence, not policy hit-and-run. To demand novelty for its own sake is to mistake continuity for repetition or stagnation. A reform agenda requires sustained execution, institutional consolidation and policy coherence over time.
“Too little detail”
Another recurring complaint is that the Address lacked sufficient detail. There are no timelines, no cost breakdowns, no technical blueprints, we are told. This critique ignores constitutional and procedural convention. The State of the Nation Address is a policy and strategic outline of priorities and direction. It sets the macro frame. Detailed implementation plans, specific budget allocations and regulatory instruments are properly elaborated through cluster briefings, ministerial statements, briefings to portfolio committees and the Budget Speech.
Expecting the President to deliver operational plans of all departments in a single address reflects a deep misunderstanding of both governance architecture and parliamentary practice. He does not have the luxury of an entire day to speak, nor should he. Strategic clarity is the purpose of Sona. Operational detail is the responsibility of line ministries.
Critics know this. Yet the “lack of detail” argument persists, often less as a genuine concern but more as a convenient rhetorical device.
“It is all about electioneering”
Some detractors framed the announcements as part of electioneering, implying that delivery during an election cycle is inherently suspect. This line of criticism is deeply flawed. The government does not suspend its constitutional duty because an election is approaching. Service delivery cannot be paused for the sake of political optics. To suggest otherwise is to imply that citizens should endure stagnation and lack of services until all ballots have been counted.
If infrastructure investments accelerate, if social protection expands, if reforms gain momentum, that is governance in action and a nation at work, not electioneering. It would be far more troubling if the government chose inaction to avoid accusations of political timing.
Rehashed opposition scripts
A noticeable portion of the criticism bore striking resemblance to responses delivered in previous years, sometimes word for word. This suggests that, for some political actors, critique is not contingent on content but predetermined by position.
In a vibrant democracy, ideological opposition is legitimate. But there is a difference between principled disagreement and reflex hostility. When criticism is drafted before the speech is heard, it ceases to be analytical and becomes performative.
That performative instinct weakens democratic discourse. South Africa deserves a debate rooted in substance, not recycled indignation.
On economic reform and structural constraints
More substantive criticism points to slow economic growth, unemployment and persistent inequality. These are real concerns and deserve serious engagement.
However, to attribute structural economic challenges solely to the present administration ignores both global and domestic realities. Any fair criticism must take into account the COVID pandemic that contracted GDP, global inflationary shocks, energy supply disruptions, logistics backlogs and longstanding structural inequality embedded over decades. The President’s Address acknowledged these constraints while outlining ongoing reforms, particularly in energy generation liberalisation, logistics sector reform, industrial policy, infrastructure investment and public employment programmes.
Reform in complex systems does not yield instant results. It requires regulatory change, market confidence, institutional rebuilding and sustained fiscal discipline. The direction articulated is consistent with global best practice for middle-income economies seeking inclusive growth.
On social protection and fiscal responsibility
Another line of attack suggested that social support measures reflect fiscal recklessness. This argument oversimplifies the delicate balance between social protection and fiscal sustainability.
South Africa’s social grant system has long been recognised as one of the most effective redistributive mechanisms in the developing world. Social protection stabilises demand, reduces extreme poverty and cushions households against economic shocks. The President’s reaffirmation of social support, alongside commitments to fiscal consolidation and revenue reform, reflects an attempt to hold together growth and dignity, rather than sacrifice one at the altar of the other.
Responsible governance is not austerity at all costs. It requires a delicate balance.
Areas of broad convergence
Despite loud dissent, there are areas where even critics concede the President struck the right notes.
There is broad agreement on the urgency of energy security and the need to sustain reforms that have stabilised generation capacity. There is consensus that infrastructure investment, particularly in logistics, water systems and digital connectivity, is indispensable to economic recovery. There is recognition that crime and corruption must be confronted decisively and that rebuilding institutional capability is non-negotiable.
On youth employment and skills development, too, the resonance was unmistakable. South Africa’s demographic reality demands deliberate intervention and the Address placed young people squarely at the centre of the national development agenda.
Perhaps most importantly, the speech acknowledged that economic reform and social justice are not opposing objectives. They are mutually reinforcing pillars of national stability.
What is the alternative?
Criticism is easy but governing is more complex and difficult. A serious critique must offer an alternative macroeconomic framework, an alternative fiscal strategy, an alternative infrastructure financing model, an alternative energy transition pathway. Few of the loudest detractors provided one.
Instead, much of the opposition oscillated between demanding faster reform while opposing reform measures; calling for fiscal restraint while demanding expanded spending; criticising state intervention while objecting to market liberalisation. Such contradictions reveal not a coherent counter-vision, but political positioning.
South Africa’s challenges are profound. But the path forward requires disciplined implementation, not populist rhetoric.
Conclusion
The President’s Address did not promise instant transformation. It did something more difficult. It committed to sustained structural reform, institutional rebuilding, infrastructure acceleration and social protection within tight fiscal parameters.
Leadership in a complex democracy is not measured by applause lines. It is measured by policy coherence, institutional strengthening and long-term stability.
This moment demands more than reflex opposition or uncritical praise. It demands civic maturity. Institutional rebuilding is underway but incomplete. Economic recovery is gradual but visible. Political parties must engage in substantive debate rather than scripted hostility. Civil society must hold the government accountable while recognising genuine progress. Most importantly, citizens must refuse to be passive spectators in the unfolding South African story. Democracies do not collapse because problems exist. They weaken when people disengage.
South Africa’s future will not be secured by a single speech, nor undone by a single criticism. It will be shaped by collective resolve and a refusal to surrender to despair.
Cornelius Monama is a government communicator and public servant. He writes in his personal capacity (X: @cmonama)
The cabinet score cards show persistent underperformance:
The FW de Klerk Foundation, News24 and the Mail & Guardian undertake cabinet performance assessments. All three systems correlate well statistically and have shown an improvement in cabinet performance since 2020, from a mean cabinet performance score of 5.21 to 5.5–5.8 in 2025. However, these encouraging improvements coincided with the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in 2024 and 2025.
Fifteen cabinet members in the GNU are underperforming, scoring below the mean or receiving a D grade or below. This number is too significant to ignore. Regrettably, 14 (FW de Klerk Foundation) or 15 (M&G) cabinet ministers continue to perform below the mean. Approximately 13 of these underperforming ministers (87%) belong to the ANC. This ANC ministerial underperformance has persisted since 2020, 17 in 2020 versus 13 in 2025.
In 2020, the cabinet was exclusively ANC. In both the M&G and FW de Klerk assessment systems, no members of the Democratic Alliance (DA) or Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) were found to be underperforming.
Despite being flawed, imperfect or complex, these three assessment systems are not valueless. They are a necessary measure to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our leadership.
In 2025, the FW de Klerk Foundation undertook, for the first time, an assessment of the national executive: the president, deputy president, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. Unlike the M&G cabinet score cards, the FW de Klerk Foundation provides both a grade and an actual numerical score. Its national executive assessment is biased towards objectivity, unlike the M&G and News24 assessments, which are biased towards subjectivity.
The FW de Klerk Foundation assessment is independent, non-partisan, merit-based, outcome-driven, evidence-based on verifiable data and peer-reviewed. It assessed each office-bearer against five dimensions drawn directly from the Constitution:
• Leadership and vision;
• Execution and impact;
• Integrity and accountability;
• Use of public resources, with section 195 as the benchmark; and
• Advancement of constitutional rights.
As a new system of assessment, the FW de Klerk Foundation adds value and a different perspective to the already established M&G and News24 systems. News24 did not provide any assessment for the cabinet in 2025. For comparison in this essay, I focus on the cabinet scores, leaving the deputy ministers’ scores aside.
The Mail & Guardian has conducted and published the Cabinet Report Cards, popularly known as the Cabinet Scores, since 1994 during the first government of national unity under President Nelson Mandela. Over time, these reports have improved and matured, becoming popular and one of the ways South Africans assess the performance and quality of their cabinet. The M&G cabinet score card assesses ministers’ performance on:
• Policy implementation;
• Service delivery;
• Budget execution; and
• Handling of national issues.
It is a respected but subjective barometer of accountability, focusing on tangible outcomes and adherence to mandates rather than just politics. There are many insights to learn from these report cards despite their shortcomings.
Successive ANC governments have promised life-style audits and cabinet performance contracts but these have not yet materialised. It is common knowledge that many politicians and the public read these reports and form opinions. Those cabinet members who score well appreciate these reports but those who score poorly often criticise the methodology. Nevertheless, the annual Cabinet Score Cards have become a reality of our political life.
Results
Since 2020, the mean cabinet performance in the M&G Cabinet Score Cards has improved from 5.2 in 2020 to 5.912 in 2024 and 5.5 in 2025. The last two values correspond with the establishment of the GNU. In 2020, the cabinet was composed exclusively of ANC members. In this assessment, 56.7% of members, or 17 cabinet members, performed below the mean of 5.2.
In 2025, the mean cabinet score of the M&G assessment increased to 5.51, following the formation of the GNU by a coalition of ten parties. In the M&G assessment, 15 cabinet members, or 46%, performed below the mean of 5.51.
In 2025, the FW de Klerk Foundation found the mean cabinet performance to be 5.85. The correlation between the two systems was statistically deemed moderate, allowing for comparisons. The intraclass correlation indicated good agreement, meaning the numerical scores between the two systems are similar.
The FW de Klerk Foundation found 14 cabinet members underperforming. In the M&G assessment, 15 cabinet ministers were performing below the mean. In the M&G assessment, 13 of the underperforming cabinet ministers were from the ANC. In the FW de Klerk Foundation, 12 underperforming cabinet members were from the ANC. The underperforming ministers closely match each other in the two assessment systems.
In 2020, the cabinet was exclusively ANC and 17 cabinet members were underperforming. Now in 2025, 14 or 15 cabinet ministers are underperforming, 12 or 13 of whom are members of the ANC. Over a period of approximately five years, 12 ANC cabinet ministers have consistently underperformed as assessed by these methods. There is no consequence management for these underperforming ministers.
It is important for the president to address this underperformance within the GNU. The president and the ANC, as part of its renewal programme, should ask profound questions of its deployees. Questions include: Why does it deploy so many underperforming cabinet ministers over such prolonged periods? Is it a question of poor qualifications, incompetence, or putting square pegs in round holes? What has this group of ministers cost taxpayers over this period? What is the ANC going to do in future regarding accountability and consequence management for these underperforming ministers?
I am grateful to Dr Nombuso Zondo (NWU) and Dr Mohanad Mohammed (UKZN) for the statistical analysis.
Professor Malegapuru Makgoba is a former health ombud and deputy chair of the National Planning Commission.
South African cinema takes centre stage at Joburg Film Festival 2026:
Two lauded South African films will bookend the Joburg Film Festival when it returns from 3–8 March 2026, opening and closing the city’s flagship cinematic event with stories rooted firmly in local history, myth and memory.
Opening the festival on 3 March is Laundry (Uhlanjululo), the debut feature from Zamo Mkhwanazi, fresh from its international premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it was hailed as “thrilling African cinema” by Film Fatale. Described by Variety as possessing “the gloss of 1990s historical dramas,” the film is set in 1960s South Africa and centres on a Black family running a laundry business under rare permission in a whites-only district.
At its heart is Enoch, played by Siyabonga Shibe, a patriarch fighting to protect his family’s fragile livelihood in a system designed to exclude him. His son, portrayed by Ntobeko Sishi, harbours artistic ambitions that complicate the family’s already precarious position. As the threat of imprisonment looms, the story becomes a meditation on survival, dignity and the quiet theft of intergenerational wealth under apartheid. The cast also includes Bukamina Cebekhulu, Tracy September and Justin Strydom. While opening night attendance is by invitation, the film will screen again for the public on 7 March at Nu Metro Cine 1 in Hyde Park.
Closing the festival on 8 March is the South African premiere of The Trek, a western-horror by first-time director MeekaeeI Adam. Set in 1846, the film follows a Dutch-Afrikaans family and their British benefactor as they journey across the Kalahari Desert to claim land, guided by a mysterious Khoen traveller. As hunger, exhaustion and mistrust fracture the group, two spectral figures drawn from Southern African folklore hover at the edges of the story.
“The land isn’t just a backdrop,” says Joburg Film Festival curator Nhlanhla Ndaba about The Trek. “It’s alive. It’s judging them.”
Blending historical realism with mythic storytelling, the film reimagines the western survival genre through a distinctly Southern African lens. It interrogates colonialism not as distant history but as an ongoing moral and spiritual reckoning, a theme that feels particularly urgent at this moment. The cast includes Morné Visser, Maurice Carpede, Camilla Borghesani, Trix Vivier and Rob van Vuuren, with Adam already earning recognition from the Directors Guild of South Africa’s Creatives Awards.For Ndaba, the pairing of these two films is intentional.
“Both Laundry and The Trek delicately balance texture with technique and navigate their subject matter with real confidence,” he says. “These are stories rooted in uniquely South African contexts that invite audiences to think, feel,and actively journey with the characters.”
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
