Budget 3.0 and the looming battle between politicians and technocrats in Treasury

We are in a situation where politicians from different parties are negotiating over how the government will spend money. For now, it is relatively simple, it is between just two parties, whose agendas are also relatively clear. But this is only the starting point of a major change that will shake through our politics.
With the Finance Ministry working on what is inevitably being called 'Budget 3.0' we are now likely to see an unprecedented process involving politicians from different parties, and technocrats from National Treasury.
This is likely to lead to some kind of tension between them. At the same time, increasing opposition to the DA within the ANC could put intense pressure on the whole process.
Over the past few days it has been confirmed by the DA that at least two of its members are now working with Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana to draw up the new Budget.
Meanwhile, the Sunday Times has reported that many members of the ANC's caucus in Parliament are again pushing for the party to stop working with the DA.
They claim its actions in voting against the previous fiscal framework, and its various court cases against aspects of government policy, show that it must be removed.
Hanging over all of this is our recent history of tension between the DA and the ANC.
It should not be forgotten that the DA is but one of 10 parties in the current coalition and many of the others have big differences with the ANC.
For example, if the Patriotic Alliance were to go to court to try to overturn the government's current policy stance towards Israel, would ANC caucus members demand that they be forced out too?
Perhaps. Which indicates how complicated this situation is.
But for the moment the key tension in this coalition is what it has always been: the relationship between the ANC and the DA (along with all of its complications, including the fact that it is inextricably intertwined with President Cyril Ramaphosa and the leadership battle within the ANC).
This means that Godgonwana's decision to work with the DA in drawing up the Budget makes political sense. It also makes it impossible for the DA to oppose it – it would look foolish for opposing a Budget it helped draw up.
And the political reality is that because of the numbers of the game (the ANC and the DA together have 60% of the seats in the National Assembly) other parties would just have to go along with it.
The chair of the DA's Federal Council, Helen Zille, has said: 'We do not talk about red lines. We are aiming at a balanced Budget which will involve cutting some items of expenditure that do not add value.'
This is probably clever politics. It means the DA is deliberately trying to avoid any more disputes. It also means that if any money is saved through whichever cuts, it can claim some kind of victory.
Of course, the ANC has also already agreed to the kind of process that could lead to cuts.
In the original Budget proposal, Budget 1.0, the written text of the speech (which was never delivered) promised a process of spending reform. Essentially, this is the same thing, a series of reforms that would lead to spending cuts.
But the scope for tension remains.
It is likely that the two DA members involved in this (Deputy Finance Minister Ashor Sarupen and Mark Burke) will push hard for some cuts. And, being politicians, they may want to force the ANC to make politically significant concessions (imagine for example, they insist that the National Youth Development Agency be shut down).
Godongwana might want to oppose that, suggesting it is not politically feasible for his constituency (and the inevitable patronage opportunities that would be lost).
In the middle of this are the technocrats, the officials in National Treasury who have to manage the actual numbers.
Technically, they are politically neutral. But now they are going to be stuck in the middle of a very difficult political fight.
At the same time the importance of this moment should not be forgotten.
We are now in a situation where politicians from different parties are negotiating over how the government will spend money.
For the moment, it is relatively simple, it is between just two parties.
And the agendas of those two parties are also relatively clear: the DA wants reform, the ANC (presumably) wants to keep things as they are.
But this is only the starting point of a major change that will shake through our politics.
In the near future it is likely that other parties will be a part of this process. It is entirely possible that after the next election there will be three major parties needed to support a coalition.
In fact, if ANC MPs in the party's caucus have their way, it would be even sooner, with a large number of parties necessary to vote in favour of a Budget.
This will lead to simple patronage politics; parties will demand certain policies or even that their own people be appointed, as the price of their support.
The only people standing in the way of this are the technocrats. And they, technically, work to the national good, but must also obey democratically elected politicians.
This is likely to result in some very complicated situations in the future.
And this moment is vitally important to our future. How our society deals with this current situation might well set precedents and conventions as to how we deal with this.
Meanwhile, there have been suggestions, again, that the finance minister should be someone who is not a politician, that a complete outsider should be asked to do the job.
This would follow the example of Derek Keys who was appointed to the position by FW de Klerk during the transition to democracy.
While there may be merit in this (certainly, an independent finance minister might well enjoy more legitimacy among all voters than a person from any one party), it also has drawbacks.
For a start, while Keys (and Chris Liebenberg, who followed him) were seen to be doing their national duty by helping the transition to democracy, the situation is much more complicated, and politicised, now.
Someone with a stellar business reputation might well want to avoid politics altogether. Would you risk your career by engaging with politics?
And a party in the coalition that opposes their decisions would probably say so publicly, putting them in a dangerous position.
In the short term there are several scenarios that could now play out.
Godongwana and the DA are probably likely to reach an agreement relatively easily, allowing a Budget to be passed.
The voices in the ANC calling for the DA to leave the national coalition might well be silenced, or muzzled, or simply ignored over the next few months. If only because, were the ANC to push the DA out of the coalition Ramaphosa would probably be fatally weakened (that in turn would lead to Deputy President Paul Mashatile lobbying to take over early, something that would cause intense division in the party).
It is also possible, but probably less likely, that the DA and the ANC continue to fight, and can't reach an agreement.
And, if the voices in the ANC who oppose the DA's inclusion in the coalition gain in strength, that would lead to the end of the coalition. The ANC would then be forced to govern with the help of many smaller parties.
The result of that would be a kind of governance we have seen in metros like Joburg and Tshwane in recent times. This would be a disaster.
It has often been said that this first proper coalition in national government was going to be a vital period in the development of our democracy.
It may turn out that the next three weeks, leading up to the publication of the next Budget, will be the most important period of this coalition, and thus of the next few years. DM

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Eyewitness News

7 hours ago

• Eyewitness News

Iran-Israel war: SA calling on UN to broker peaceful resolution

JOHANNESBURG - The South African government has expressed concern over the United States (US) military involvement in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. President Cyril Ramaphosa says he had hoped the US, particularly under President Donald Trump, would use its influence to promote dialogue between the warring nations. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya says South Africa is now calling on the United Nations to take the lead in brokering a peaceful resolution. ALSO READ: Trump says US strikes 'obliterated' Iran nuclear sites 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump will use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the UN [United Nations] the opportunity and space to lead on a peaceful resolution of matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity.'

eNCA

7 hours ago

• eNCA

Ramaphosa urges dialogue after US strikes Iran

PRETORIA - President Cyril Ramaphosa has expressed concern over attacks by the United States' on Iranian targets, escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. WATCH: Rising tensions as missiles light up the skies This follows US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites — a move Ramaphosa says risks further destabilising the region. The president says South Africa had hoped that Donald Trump would use his influence to encourage dialogue, not confrontation. Ramaphosa is now urging all parties — the US, Israel, and Iran — to give the United Nations space to lead mediation efforts. That includes independent inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities and renewed commitment to peace talks. Vincent Magwenya, spokesperson for President Ramaphosa, says the government's strong support for diplomacy and the urgent need to avoid military escalation. South Africa urges dialogue to end Israel-Iran conflict — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) June 22, 2025

Daily Maverick

8 hours ago

• Daily Maverick

Floyd Shivambu and our politics of churn

The decision by former MK party secretary-general Floyd Shivambu to 'consult' before starting a new party is another indication of what could become a dominant trend in our politics. We are now likely to see more parties being formed more often, and, in many cases, failing. This churn is all about palace politics and may lead to more disengagement. Floyd Shivambu's recent trajectory, from his position as deputy leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), to joining the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party, becoming its secretary-general, being fired and now working on a new party is all about position and palace politics. While he and his supporters might argue that it is about ideology, this is hard to square with reality. The EFF describes itself as a progressive pan-African force; the MK party wants traditional leaders to govern (under Jacob Zuma). Clearly Shivambu's claim that joining the MK party was 'the best decision' he's ever made was not true. It now appears likely that he will be expelled from the party and will start a new party. In historical terms this is part of a much longer process. As the African National Congress (ANC) continues to fracture, so more parties are flowing from its former members. It should not be forgotten that this process started with the expulsion of Bantu Holomisa from the ANC. He formed the United Democratic Movement. Since then, there have been many parties that have fought one or two elections and then fallen from view. The Independent Democrats, Congress of the People (Cope) and Agang are good examples of this. But now it appears that the process has sped up, and we can expect many more such parties. While some were clearly non-starters, others fell victim to the kind of palace politics that Shivambu has clearly been involved in. Parties such as Cope and Agang disappeared mainly because of disputes among their leaders. The Independent Democrats disappeared when Patricia de Lille decided to join the Democratic Alliance (DA). When that marriage fell apart she formed another party in Good. Importantly many of these parties do have their roots in the ANC in some way shape or form. This is why Dali Mpofu was not wrong to say that he felt he deserved to belong to the ANC, the EFF and the MK party all at the same time. He was merely speaking about the fact that many of our newer parties have their roots in the ANC. The ANC was easily the most prominent movement in the fight against apartheid, and the way our society was structured at the time meant that most people who wanted to be politically active joined it. Or something that was affiliated with it in some way. Personality politics One of the key features of these newer parties has been that they are so often about personality politics. Many parties are unable to move on past their first leader, because so often, the party is the leader. This then leads to a large percentage of churn — parties that come and go based on the whims of their leaders. This has a huge impact on our politics. And it can lead to absurd consequences In Joburg, Colleen Makhubela became the Speaker after representing Cope as a proportional representation councillor. The party had won just 0.22% of the vote. She used this position to bargain, as she appeared to hold the balance of power between coalitions led by the ANC and the DA. Then she left Cope (or was expelled, depending on whom you care to listen to) and formed the SA Rainbow Alliance. That received 12,450 votes in last year's elections. Following all of that she joined… you guessed it… the MK party. Someone who is able to do that can have no ideology. But apart from the absurdity there are more important consequences. Declining trust The first is that these smaller outfits make forming and maintaining coalitions almost impossible. The fact that it is about individual personalities, and that the leadership of these parties changes so often, means that their behaviour is impossible to predict. This leads to short-lived coalitions in councils and, soon perhaps, the National Assembly. The second is that all of this palace politics of personality will lead many people to conclude, correctly, that none of this is about helping people. While our politics has been through phases of protecting party leaders, or certain classes, now it is becoming more about just individual personalities. But it is all happening in plain sight. Everyone can see it. Which means that voters are likely to simply turn away from our politics. It will lead to greater levels of people simply refusing to vote. All of this could spiral downwards. As more parties are formed and as their leaders use them simply for bargaining in coalitions, so governance will get worse. More and more decisions will be made simply for the purposes of patronage. In turn people will be less inclined to stay involved in our politics. Why vote if you know a party is just a personal vehicle for someone who is not interested in improving your life? This is a difficult dynamic to stop; individuals and groups must be allowed to move from party to party and to form parties when they wish. Some measures, such as those that would limit representation in legislatures to parties that get over a certain percentage of support, might help. But in the end, it appears as if we are destined to have a lot more churn in our politics, with serious consequences as a result. DM