ANTHONY BUTLER: Bigger cabinet could aid coalition politics but strict financial boundaries are vital

The problem with cabinet costs is not so much the number of ministers as the huge waste typified by the ministerial handbook and the absurdities of VIP protection

First published in BusinessLive

09 AUGUST 2024

The first Cabinet Lekgotla of the GNU at Sefako Makgatho Presidential Guest House in Pretoria. Picture: GCIS

Many long-standing critics of a “bloated cabinet” — among them the leaders of the ANC and DA — have gone rather quiet on the issue now that they have formed an extremely large unity government.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has made repeated commitments in the past to reduce the number of cabinet ministers. In May 2019 he actually cut the number of cabinet ministers from 36 to 28. 

The DA has a whole 40-page policy document, Vision 2029: Maximising Service Delivery by Minimising cabinet, which argues in favour of a 15-member cabinet. 

Today though, only ActionSA’s Herman Mashaba and Build One SA’s Mmusi Maimane still bemoan an unwieldy cabinet and the use of government offices to extend patronage to coalition partners. 

The most common complaint about big cabinets is that ministers’ retinues, houses, flights and cars cost money, so there should be fewer of them. 

More importantly, some empirical studies have shown there is a statistical relationship between larger cabinets and poorer governance indicators (although it is not clear if bigger cabinets create worse governance or crooked governors tend to appoint large cabinets). 

Other research suggests that more ministers — each trying to spend money on their own patronage networks, constituencies, and interest groups — may put upward pressure on overall government budgets. 

Finally, there is some reason to believe the co-ordination of action — or simply reaching a decision — becomes harder when the size of the group involved becomes much bigger. 

While these may be good reasons to avoid gratuitous expansion, a balanced assessment has to embrace what may be the modest costs — and many potential benefits — that a bigger cabinet can bring. 

The problem with cabinet costs is not so much the number of ministers as the enormous waste exemplified by the ministerial handbook and the absurdities of VIP protection. These can be addressed. 

Moreover, if patronage forms the basis for government even a small number of ministers will use their offices to provide jobs and services to supporters and party loyalists, and engage in elite corruption and rent-seeking. A larger number of ministers, accompanied by appropriate oversight, a rigorous budget process and a powerful Treasury, will not do so. 

It is also true that government stability is a major boon for investment, and ministerial appointments can sometimes promote it. One famous study of 40 African countries over a 30 year period confirmed that more cabinet appointments can extend presidential tenure and discourage military takeover. 

Another study used data for 100 countries over two decades to show that large cabinets reduce the likelihood of political assassinations, another indicator of instability. 

Coalition politics, something South Africans must now reckon with, often benefits from a bigger cabinet. When many parties become involved and the complexity of negotiation grows, additional portfolios can keep smaller parties in the tent. 

Indeed, the problem of cabinet size is secondary to other executive branch challenges the president and his coalition partners face. Some of these challenges were exemplified by the two presidencies of Jacob Zuma: the appointment of poorly qualified and transparently corrupt ministers to key portfolios; and frequent cabinet reshuffles that destabilised departments and made policy consistency impossible. 

Other problems have survived Zuma’s departure, or even worsened under his successor, including a proliferation of ministerial task teams, parallel institutional structures with overlapping responsibilities, and a presidency that takes on more and more responsibilities without commensurate increases in its capabilities. 

All things considered, a smaller cabinet is probably better than a bigger one. But a large and reasonably stable cabinet, with capable and accountable ministers and respect for constitutional and fiscal boundaries, is a pretty good second best. 

• Butler teaches public policy at the University of Cape Town.