Nominations for the Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans 2026 are now open:
The Mail & Guardian invites the public to nominate exceptional young people aged 18 to 35, with nominations closing on Friday, 13 March 2026.
This prestigious initiative celebrates young leaders, innovators and changemakers across 15 categories, including the Editor’s Choice category, which recognises those developing resilient, entrepreneurial and impactful solutions to the challenges of today and tomorrow.
This year’s theme, “Honouring the legacy, shaping tomorrow,” carries particular significance. Fifty years have passed since the youth of 1976 stood firm against oppression and helped reshape the nation’s future. As South Africa marks Youth Month and this historic milestone, the Mail & Guardian will honour that enduring legacy of leadership through its flagship 200 Young South Africans (200 YSA) project.
Over the years, the initiative has grown into a respected brand in its own right, profiling outstanding young South Africans who are emerging as leaders in their fields and shaping the country’s path forward.
Click here to submit your nomination
Breaking cycle of foreign aid, corruption:
While the hundreds of billions of dollars in US foreign assistance spent over the years have dramatically improved many people’s lives and livelihoods around the world, too often the United States’ approach to foreign assistance failed to advance US interests, failed to spur systematic development and enabled and perpetuated dependence and corruption by leaders in recipient countries.
Since 1991, the United States has provided more than $ 200 billion in foreign assistance to Africa, yet the African Union reports that African countries lose an estimated $ 88 billion each year through tax evasion, money laundering and corruption.
Too often, what is needed for economic growth and development is not more money but sound reforms that incentivise enduring private investment and growth.
Instead of insisting on mutual accountability to use US assistance to address the causes of poverty and underdevelopment, too often we funded outputs to allay the symptoms. In doing so, we failed both the American taxpayer and the citizens of developing countries who looked to their governments and ours to help create the conditions to realise a better future.
For decades, the United States did not have a consistent policy as to even whether assistance was charity or a foreign policy tool. We did not require a committed partner, a coherent business plan, equity collateral at risk or funding subject to performance-based disbursements. We infantilised recipient governments instead of having candid discussions on mutual performance expectations.
Too often our approach to developing countries – frequently perpetuated by the excuses of those same governments – reflected the soft bigotry of low expectations. We excused the lack of political will as “capacity constraints,” dismissed it with “we shouldn’t expect too much,” and did not challenge them when governments acted in contrast to their professed commitments.
Too often, we were content to confuse governments’ commitments for actions. We misinterpreted our access to leaders as influence with those leaders. We mischaracterised aid projects’ outputs as outcomes and programme objectives as results. We misconstrued governments’ permission for us to expend aid as evidence that they shared a commitment to advance professed objectives.
Perhaps worst, we failed to acknowledge when leaders of aid recipient countries demonstrated over and over through their actions that they prioritised their personal interests over at the expense of the interests of their own country and citizens.
We virtually never withheld assistance funds because host governments failed to deliver on their commitments, instead we responded by providing even more aid “because they have needs.” By trying to save people from bearing the brunt of the bad governance and corruption of their leaders, we helped perpetuate that very same corruption and bad governance.
Quite simply, we violated the central maxim of international development: the donor cannot want development more than the recipient. By doing so, we fueled moral hazard.
From the pure greed of Malawi’s “Cashgate” scandal under Joyce Banda to the systematic kleptocracies of Bangladesh or South Sudan, by back filling health and social service needs recklessly created by bad governance, we have enabled and underwritten government corruption.
In the worst cases, such as the predatory abuses of Mali’s Ibrahim Keita or Guinea’s Alpha Conde against their own populations, corruption and the failure to deliver basic public services needs led to military coups and incursions by terrorist organisations.
American foreign assistance is not charity but a tool to advance American diplomacy, security and prosperity. To accomplish these goals, we must focus our assistance and insist on administering it with the host-government buy-in and mutual accountability for outcomes.
This, in turn, will leave space for market driven growth that will also help close off the means by which malign international actors exploit developing economies and workers.
We should not be dissuaded by detractors who will attempt to vilify a more transactional approach as “neocolonialism.” Quite the opposite is true.
insisting on systematic reforms that spur transparent and accountable growth and allow governments to retain funds to support their people, the United States can do more to catalyse actual economic development and the upliftment of developing countries’ societies – and advance tangible US interests – better than we have in recent decades. It is the dependency-oriented, NGO-driven old model of development that is fundamentally colonial in mindset – refusing to respect development nation sovereignty, determinism or agency.
Operationalising this approach involves adopting investment-oriented goals, requirements and incentives:
A serious host nation: Secretary Rubio has been clear, “Americans should not fund failed governments in faraway lands … we will favour those nations that have demonstrated both the ability and the willingness to help themselves.” If a government is not already taking steps to stem corruption and grow the economy when its own funds are at stake, we should have no expectation that they will be better stewards of US funds. Without an aligned host-government, we should focus our resources elsewhere.
The right focus: Our purpose is not to give money away but to catalyse systemic reforms that enable sustainable growth and opportunities for the US and a recipient country. Neither governments nor donors create growth; instead, our roles are to foster conditions for the private sector to invest, create jobs, spur growth and pay taxes to fund public services. Hence, US foreign assistance should focus on curbing corruption and overcoming and remediating binding constraints to growth to lay the foundation for a transparent, level and accountable business enabling environment.
Confidence in the business plan: Most developing countries have national development plans but too often they are unresourced and unprioritised works of fantasy and seldom do governments enforce accountability for their actual implementation. What President Trump explained in clearly delineating America’s national interests in this year’s National Security Strategy is equally true of developing countries: when everything is supposedly a priority, nothing really can be. We should help sincere host governments develop focused, realistic strategies based on core sectors and targeting key constraints that are founded on candid analysis and include specific, tailored tactics.
Skin in the game: If a country is not going to put its own resources behind an effort, it is either not really a priority, they are not really serious or they don’t have confidence in their plan. Few investors would engage where the owner hasn’t put collateral down or his own equity at risk. Why should foreign assistance not require the same?
Here, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has demonstrated two key best practices that ensure buy-in. The first is a requirement for co-financing by the host government. The second is conditions precedent: tangible reform actions a host government takes before funding even begins, to enable the success of the project outcomes.
The right resources: Again, our purpose is not to give assistance away and the history of both corruption and assistance has shown that money is not what is most lacking to spur development. So, building on an analysis of binding constraints to growth and a business plan that we have confidence in, it is incumbent on the United States and the recipient government to craft a bespoke package of technical assistance interventions to inform and enable the reforms needed.
This should not be an approach of letting a thousand flowers bloom and it must not be built around the question of “how can we help?” Instead, we must start with the questions “what are the outcomes we want to achieve in the American interest and what needs to happen to realise them?” and build an assistance program around that.
Have a contract: Unlike the Development Objective Agreements (DOAGs) of USAID that bound the US to fund sectors but seldom included host governments’ performance commitments, the MCC model again provides a best practice. Explicitly detailing shared objectives and commitments by both governments – typically ratified by the legislature to carry the force of law – reduces uncertainty and improves accountability by enshrining the binding obligations of both parties.
Performance-based funding: Too often, once development projects were approved, donors’ focus turned inward to implementation, achieving outputs, and keeping funds flowing even if receiving governments actively undermined them.
Gradually, funding agencies have begun shifting to performance-based disbursements. By requiring a host government to demonstrate – through its actions, not merely its rhetoric – that it remains politically and financially committed to achieve professed objectives, we ensure that US assistance achieves greater impact.
By restructuring our approach to foreign assistance and engaging developing countries based on national interest, we can help curb the corruption that deprives families of the hope of a better future. We can deliver lasting and systematic growth alongside recipient countries. And we can deliver tangible value for the American people through a more secure and prosperous world.
Michael C. Gonzales is the US Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia and the US Special Representative to the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).
EFF to weigh options amid Malema woes:
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) will use its second plenum this weekend to deliberate on the position of its leader Julius Malema as unease grows within the party over the impact of his legal troubles.
Dissatisfaction has intensified among supporters who are concerned that the organisation could be destabilised if leadership questions are not addressed, several senior party members said.
The plenum — a strategic planning meeting of the EFF constituted by the leaders from the central, provincial and regional command teams, as well as the EFF students’ command and members of parliament and provincial legislatures — will review resolutions from the party’s third national people’s assembly and finalise priorities for the year.
It is happening as Malema awaits sentencing in April, after being convicted in a firearms trial last year, a development that has triggered internal discussions about leadership continuity, vote preparations and organisational stability before this year’s local government elections.
Malema was convicted last October in the East London Magistrate’s Court on charges linked to the discharge of a firearm at the EFF’s fifth anniversary rally in Mdantsane in 2018.
Video footage showed him firing a rifle into the air while addressing supporters.
The court found him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area, failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent danger to people or property and reckless endangerment.
Malema’s legal team had argued that the weapon was a prop firearm and that no injuries were sustained. Pre-sentencing hearings began last week but were postponed to 15 April, a wait which has increased anxiety among party supporters who fear that his incarceration would affect the party negatively.
If Malema is handed a custodial sentence of more than 12 months without the option of a fine, he would automatically be disqualified from serving as a member of Parliament.
Despite party members showing full support for the EFF commander in chief (CIC) in public, senior party leaders have said in private that his conviction has unsettled Red Beret supporters.
“There is unhappiness on the ground which needs to be dealt with but the fear is that the CIC might not entertain talks of his successor while he still wants to lead the party,” an EFF leader in Gauteng said.
“The danger is that those who even plan to start the conversation will be removed or even fired from the organisation because this is the CIC’s show and we all know it but it’s a necessary conversation nonetheless.”
Another senior leader told the Mail & Guardian: “People are worried that the organisation is in trouble if we do not deal openly with what happens if the president is unavailable.”
A third party official said concerns were being raised by branch leaders and activists.
“Supporters are asking hard questions. They want to know what happens to the party if the CIC is not able to lead,” the source said.
Succession planning is expected to be a central topic at the weekend plenum although another Gauteng leader warned that using the meeting for the conversation would destabilise the proceedings.
“The CIC will dismantle anyone who tries to take chances about the leadership posts. That would be their end.
“How can they think they can remove the CIC while he is still leading us?” they said.
“Before the sentencing happens, we remain resolute on him leading and believe if the law is to be fair, we will be victorious.
“This conversation should only come after sentencing and only if he is remanded in prison.
“Anything else, everyone should just be disciplined and hope for the best.”
In Limpopo, a provincial leader said debates over potential successors were already taking place within the EFF’s provincial command teams.
“There are concerns about who can step in effectively. [Deputy president] Godrich?Gardee is experienced but some members feel he is not the right person to lead the party if Malema is incapacitated,” the source said.
“If supporters feel uncertain, it affects campaigning. Leadership clarity is linked to how we approach the elections.”
Sources also expressed concern over Malema’s public comments on the judiciary.
After his pre-sentencing hearing was postponed last week, the firebrand EFF leader told supporters outside court that he would not be cowed through the legal system.
“Nobody will intimidate me or force me to retreat from my ideas. I will never retreat from my ideas, no matter the threats,” he said.
This week, several senior members said that while there was broad agreement within the EFF that South Africa’s courts were racially biased, Malema’s continued criticism last week had increased anxiety about the potential consequences
for his case.
The concern was not about the substance of the criticism but its timing, a leader said.
“We believe the judiciary is racist and hostile to black people, especially the comments about the soup kitchen not being important when it helps poor black people.
“That is not in dispute inside the EFF. But the worry is that constant attacks while the case is still before the courts may count against him.”
A senior leader from Gauteng said members were conflicted.
“Supporters agree with the president’s view of the judiciary but they are also scared. People are asking whether these statements might influence how the court treats him when sentencing is decided,” the source said.
This weekend’s leadership discussions will take place alongside preparations for the 2026 local government elections.
Malema’s case presents both a legal and organisational challenge for the party, said Kedibone Phago, a political analyst at North-West University, adding that the leadership issue would probably feature prominently in internal discussions.
“The party is heavily associated with Malema’s leadership style and public profile.
“The question among members is how the organisation will function if the president is unable to lead, even temporarily,” Phago said.
“It is a moment for the party to monitor closely, to ensure that organisational structures remain operational while the case progresses or if he is incarcerated.”
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo was not available to comment on the matter.
The EFF is seeking to strengthen its position in key metros, where coalition politics and governance instability have reshaped local government since the 2021 elections.
Party officials said youth structures and regional branches would play a key role in election preparations, with an emphasis on voter mobilisation and community engagement.
The plenum is also set to review the implementation of resolutions adopted at the third national assembly including programmes to expand membership, consolidate branches and strengthen co-ordination between national, provincial and regional structures.
Malema’s legal team has indicated it will pursue all available avenues of appeal.
The outcome of the sentencing and appeal process will determine whether he can continue to serve in Parliament and campaign freely during the election period.
Party officials said the EFF constitution provides mechanisms to ensure continuity of leadership and operations but acknowledged that Malema’s central role in the organisation had shaped its public identity since its formation in 2013.
Since its establishment, the EFF has been closely associated with Malema’s leadership style and political messaging.
Senior members said that reality has heightened anxiety among supporters as the legal case progresses.
“The party has always rallied around the CIC,” one provincial leader said.
“Now people are afraid of what happens if he is taken out of the picture, even temporarily.”
The plenum is expected to conclude on Sunday. Party officials have not indicated whether a formal statement will be issued at the end of the meeting.
While concerns arise, party provincial leader in Mpumalanga Collen Sedibe cautioned against succession talks before the sentencing.
“We cannot allow these conversations to create divisions before delegates even meet.
“The focus must remain on party unity and preparing for the year ahead,” Sedibe said.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
