‘We cannot have a third budget failure' — Economist warns as Godongwana faces GNU showdown
Image: File
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana is under pressure to ensure his 2025 budget wins the support of Government of National Unity (GNU) partners, with an economist warning that the country cannot have a situation where a third budget is not passed.
Godongwana is scheduled to table his budget speech on Wednesday.
This comes after the rejection of two previous budget proposals and the recent decision to scrap a planned increase in Value-Added Tax (VAT), placing even more strain on the National Treasury to find alternative ways to address South Africa's growing fiscal crisis.
Speaking to IOL News, Professor Jannie Rossouw of the Wits Business School emphasised the importance of passing the upcoming budget.
'The big thing is, we can only hope that this budget will go through Parliament,' Rossouw said.
'It's problematic that the previous two budgets were not approved by Parliament. The credibility of both the Finance Minister and the National Treasury has been damaged.'
Rossouw said that Godongwana must ensure the budget has the backing of the GNU partners before it is tabled in Parliament.
'I can only hope that he negotiated the budget with the GNU partners and that they agreed to it before it's presented,' Rossouw said.
'We cannot have a situation where a third budget does not pass. That does not instill confidence in the government's ability to run the economy.'
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The first budget, originally set for February, was postponed amid disagreements within the GNU over the proposed VAT hike.
A revised version, introduced in March, suggested staggered increases of 0.5 percentage points but was met with strong opposition from coalition partners, especially the Democratic Alliance (DA), including parties outside the GNU.
The Western Cape High Court later blocked the proposal.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) also challenged the VAT hike in court.
With limited options, Godongwana faces the difficult task of bridging the funding gap while satisfying all members of the GNU.
Rossouw said the budget is likely to include deep spending cuts.
'In my view, it will be necessary to cut some expenditure, because the government cannot currently raise taxes,' he said.
'And I can think of several instances where expenditure can be cut without harming service delivery to the average South African.'
Among Rossouw's suggestions, is eliminating all 43 deputy ministers, which is a demand echoed by several political parties in light of the bloated GNU.
'I don't know what deputy ministers do or why we need 43 of them. Simply get rid of them,' he said.
He also called for the closure of underperforming departments.
'Simply close certain government departments that achieve very little, like the Department of Small Business Development. It has not developed even one small business in the eastern part of South Africa.'
Rossouw also criticised what he called wasteful expenditure, including the presidential motorcade.
'Why do we need 11 vehicles and several motorbikes in the presidential motorcade?… It's unnecessary.'
He further pointed out the financial drain of state-owned enterprises, especially the South African Airways (SAA).
'I said a decade ago that the government must give SAA away. It will not fly…The government has this strange ideological idea that it needs to be aligned with these enterprises, but we're now paying the price.'
However, Rossouw said he believes the budget can only pass if it has the necessary political buy-in.
'One thing I want to see in this budget is a clear plan to stimulate economic growth,' he said.
'We need faster economic growth to get the country's unemployment crisis under control.'
'We really need to start thinking outside the box. We urgently need to get the economy going,' he added.
simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za
IOL Politics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
Refreshed proposal for South Africa name change sparks debate
A YEARS-old proposal to change South Africa's name is back in the spotlight as political parties plan to approach Parliament on the matter. According to media reports, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) is spearheading the proposal, supported by other political parties. ALSO READ: uMhlathuze workers' strike suspended pending negotiations The Republic of Azania is the proposed name change. As quoted in Business Tech, ATM argues that the name South Africa is deeply tied to the country's colonial and oppressive past. 'Before 1652, we were not South Africans. The name 'South Africa' came as a result of the British and the Boers coming together to form what was called the Union of South Africa, a structure designed to further the oppression of indigenous people,' said ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, as quoted by Business Tech. ALSO READ: Join Zululand's own Survivor star and donate blood this Mandela Day 'All formerly colonised nations, like South West Africa, have changed their names. We now know it to be Namibia,' he explained. Not everyone agrees, however, with political analyst Kenneth Mokgatlhe saying 'South Africa' is merely a geographical description. 'Other countries like South Sudan, Central African Republic, North Macedonia, East Timor, and North and South Korea also use geographical identifiers. It's nothing out of the ordinary,' Mokgatlhe told Business Tech. He went so far as to say the name 'Azania' 'lacks authentic historical, cultural, political or linguistic connections to South Africa and its people, reinforcing doubts about its relevance and appropriateness as a national name'. Don't have the ZO app? Download it to your Android or Apple device here: HAVE YOUR SAY Like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter. For news straight to your phone invite us: WhatsApp – 060 784 2695 Instagram – zululand_observer At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
The Citizen
19 hours ago
- The Citizen
National dialogue: Ramaphosa slams DA ‘hypocrisy', says party will miss out on ‘biggest show in SA'
The president also questioned the DA's decision to remain in the GNU. President Cyril Ramaphosa has strongly criticised the Democratic Alliance (DA), accusing the party of hypocrisy after it pulled out of the much-anticipated national dialogue. The DA's decision followed Ramaphosa's removal of Andrew Whitfield as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The party has opted to remain within the government of national unity (GNU) despite harsh criticism of the president's actions and threats to table a motion of no confidence. Ramaphosa on DA's withdrawal from national dialogue Addressing the matter at a press conference held at the Union Buildings in Pretoria alongside Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen, Ramaphosa described the DA's withdrawal from the dialogue as both 'unfortunate' and a 'real shock to me'. He reminded the DA that all participating parties had agreed to the dialogue process when signing the GNU statement of intent. 'Every party signed to that, and it is rather surprising to hear a leader of the Democratic Alliance saying they never agreed to that in the first place.' 'That is the worst form of hypocrisy that I've ever heard,' the president said, in the presence of DA leader John Steenhuisen. ALSO READ: DA threats 'irresponsible': Ramaphosa 'amazed' at Steenhuisen's reaction over Whitfield dismissal Ramaphosa reiterated that the national dialogue was not a 'party political platform', but rather a collective initiative. He confirmed that the dialogue would proceed regardless of the DA's involvement. 'What is wrong with the dialogue? Nothing is wrong with the dialogue. It's about people getting together. 'So what I can say is that the national dialogue will continue without the participation of the Democratic Alliance, and we will probably have a very, very successful dialogue without diversionary inputs or interference from a party that does not have the interests of South Africans at heart.' 'The National Dialogue is a platform for all South Africans to craft a shared vision of the kind of a society we seek to build and agree on the actions we need to take to realise that vision. The dialogue will proceed as planned.' ~President @CyrilRamaphosa #AustriaInSA — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 4, 2025 The president added that by refusing to participate, the DA was going to 'miss the biggest show in South Africa' that would discuss various issues. 'What a great pity,' Ramaphosa remarked. Ramaphosa insists national dialogue will proceed Former president Thabo Mbeki has also criticised the DA's stance in an open letter. Mbeki described the party's actions as both misguided and disrespectful to the South African public, dismissing the DA's claim that the dialogue was merely an ANC election campaign platform. Ramaphosa reacted to Mbeki's sentiments. 'He's also appalled, as many South Africans are appalled at the behaviour of the Democratic Alliance.' READ MORE: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven He further questioned the logic behind the DA's continued presence in the GNU while opposing the national dialogue. 'It's the strangest behaviour I've ever seen. And when they met, we thought that they were going to withdraw from the government of national unity. What did they come with? 'They come with saying no, no, no, no; we want to stay in the government of national unity, but we're boycotting the people of South Africa. 'What a contradiction. It makes no sense. So national dialogue will go on,' Ramaphosa concluded. Steenhuisen pushes back Meanwhile, Steenhuisen questioned the timing and setting of Ramaphosa's remarks. 'I don't think that intemperate attacks on a public platform when you have a visiting head of state next to you is the appropriate forum to do that,' he told the media. The DA leader said he intended to discuss with the president his appointment to the inter-ministerial committee (IMC) overseeing the national dialogue. 'I never asked to be on the IMC.' Responding to Mbeki's letter, Steenhuisen claimed the dialogue was 'an inside closed shop deal with the ANC.' 'Clearly, there's been a free flow of information, meetings, discussions around budgets and etc. that have not even taken place with members of the government of national unity. 'The first I found out that there was a R700 million price tag on this thing was when I read it in the media.' Steenhuisen maintained the dialogue was an ANC strategy to rebuild political support ahead of the 2026 local elections. He further contended that the matters set for discussion in the dialogue would not be effectively implemented by ministers linked to corruption scandals. 'A dialogue isn't going to feed anybody. It's not going to build a single house. 'It's not going to create a single other job and nothing we do or say is going to do that unless we get out there and vigorously implement the medium-term development plan, which is the adopted program of government,' Steenhuisen added. NOW READ: 'Hijacked' by the ANC? Maimane issues National Dialogue warning
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future
Former President Thabo Mbeki urges the DA to engage in national dialogue for South Africa's future. Image: File Former President Thabo Mbeki's open letter to Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen, published this week, is more than just a scathing rebuke- it's a timely reminder of the moral and political imperative for inclusive national dialogue. Mbeki, in his characteristically dense but principled tone, offers not just criticism but a clarion call: South Africa's future depends on collaborative governance, not cynical obstruction. In this, he is right. The DA's withdrawal from the national dialogue process is not only shortsighted, it is irresponsible. The central premise of Mbeki's 11-page letter is clear: South Africa's political parties, having agreed to form a Government of National Unity (GNU), have a shared duty to engage honestly in the national dialogue envisioned by that agreement. By walking away from this process, the DA appears to be choosing political point-scoring over the needs of the people. Mbeki accuses Steenhuisen and DA federal chair Helen Zille of 'arrogance,' and while that language may sting, it is far from unwarranted. Let's begin with the facts. The DA entered into the GNU following the 2024 general election, which produced no outright majority. A statement of intent signed by GNU partners explicitly commits them to a national dialogue aimed at building consensus on the country's direction. Yet, after President Cyril Ramaphosa removed DA MP Andrew Whitfield from his deputy ministerial position, the DA abruptly withdrew from the dialogue process. That decision, Mbeki points out, is not just a reaction to personnel changes; it signals more profound discomfort with meaningful public engagement. What is most troubling is the DA's claim that the national dialogue is nothing more than an ANC election strategy. Zille reportedly dismissed the process as a political ruse, calling it a 'sham' and 'a hollow exercise.' Mbeki responds with a sharp but essential rebuttal: if the DA truly believes that the people of South Africa cannot engage in shaping their future without DA participation, then that position is not only arrogant but fundamentally anti-democratic. Mbeki is correct in asserting that the national dialogue has broader roots than the ANC or any one party. He traces its origins to a 2016 agreement between several respected foundations, including those of FW de Klerk, Desmond Tutu, Kgalema Motlanthe, and Helen Suzman. These institutions, with diverse political legacies, united to form the National Foundations Dialogue Initiative. Their goal is to rebuild public trust through a participatory process grounded in shared values. That the current dialogue structure has been endorsed by these foundations and facilitated in part by volunteers only reinforces its legitimacy. The DA's departure from this effort suggests a refusal to engage with South Africans beyond its voter base. Worse still, its pledge to 'mobilise against' the process raises the spectre of political sabotage. One can disagree with aspects of a national dialogue without rejecting its entire premise. To actively campaign against a participatory process, one endorsed by civil society, foundations, and the Presidency—is to subvert the GNU's stated mission. It is worth noting that Mbeki, despite his past differences with Ramaphosa and the ANC's current leadership, has taken a principled stance in favour of inclusive governance. His letter does not read as blind loyalty to the ANC; rather, it reflects a belief in a political culture founded on dialogue, accountability, and public service. His criticism of Zille's comments about the so-called 'sham' nature of the dialogue reveals a concern for the people who are too often left out of the national conversation, citizens who feel powerless and unheard. Indeed, one of Mbeki's most powerful lines reminds us that 'the people are our country's sovereign authority.' Any party that claims to represent the people must take that seriously. Political leadership requires humility—the willingness to listen even when the process is uncomfortable or imperfect. By withdrawing, the DA risks aligning itself with a politics of exclusion. That is not what the moment demands. There are legitimate questions to ask about the structure, transparency, and goals of the national dialogue. But those questions are best answered from within the process, not from the sidelines. By choosing to engage, the DA could influence the outcomes and ensure accountability. Instead, its decision to walk away hands that power to others and betrays its own stated commitment to democratic engagement.
