Calling it as we see it: The M&G
front page in December, 2025.
The Mail and Guardian has been conducting and publishing the Cabinet Report Cards, popularly known as the Cabinet Scores, since 1994 during the first Government of National Unity (GNU) under Nelson Mandela.
Over time, the reports have improved and are one of the ways South Africans measure the performance and quality of their Cabinet. The score cards assess ministers’ performance on policy implementation, service delivery, budget execution and handling of national issues, noting it’s 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 the report cards over the years, despite their shortcomings.
We have been promised lifestyle audits and Cabinet Performance Contracts by successive ANC governments but these have not seen the light of day, like so many other promises from our leadership.
The Cabinet members who score well like or are inspired by the reports but those who score poorly find fault with the methodology and dispute them.
The report cards assess specific criteria (implied/explicit). While grading can be subjective, look for commentary focusing on:
• Policy implementation: Are stated priorities being met?
• Service delivery: Are programmes reaching intended beneficiaries?
• Budget and efficiency: How well are funds managed and used?
• Governance and accountability: Are there instances of corruption, lack of transparency or poor administration?
• Tangible improvements: Are lives measurably better in their sectors
Interpreting the grades: Expect a range from A (excellent) to F or U (unsatisfactory/failure).
• High grades (A, B): Indicate strong performance, meeting targets, effective leadership.
• Mid-grades (C, C+): Suggest mixed results, some successes with significant room for improvement, or facing major challenges.
• Low grades (D, F, U): Point to dismal misses, failure to implement policy, poor service delivery or scandals.
The Cabinet is composed of 35 members including the president. It has been a GNU for the past 18 months. Twenty-three cabinet members are from the ANC.
A cursory look at the Cabinet scores of 2025 showed that 15 Cabinet members, that is 42.85% of the total, scored at or below the grade of D.
The number is too significant to ignore. What is more revealing is that 13 cabinet members, or 86.6%, out of the 15 poor performing cabinet ministers are members of or associated with the ANC.
The 13 members constitute 56.5% of the ANC cabinet members in the GNU. Only two of the 12 non-ANC cabinet members are performing poorly. No member of the DA is performing poorly. The performance party comparisons are made possible and easier to analyse now and compare through the creation of the GNU.
The average mean performances for the Cabinet were 5.2, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.5 for 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025 respectively. The average mean cabinet performances demonstrated that overall cabinet performance has improved statistically significantly since the introduction of the GNU in June 2024, 5.2 (2020) vs 5.9 (2024) average mean.
Save for the ANC, Good and PAC members, all other cabinet members of the GNU have performed above the average mean of 5.5. An improved cabinet performance bodes well for society, for the country and for the continuation of the GNU despite its problems. It also strengthens the rationale for and why establishing the GNU was a good strategic choice.
It is also reassuring that the president performed well.
The question that the president, the ANC and the GNU must confront is why many ANC cabinet ministers are performing poorly. This is not an isolated poor performing incident but appears entrenched through a few repeated ministerial offenders over the years. Is it the lack of competence, the dreaded ANC cadre deployment policy or placing square pegs in round holes?
Making teachers run water affairs or defence may not be a wise strategy. A minister’s knowledge and competence must reign supreme and align with the portfolio. Ministers must, therefore, be fit for purpose and not fit for balancing factional party battles.
Perhaps the first step towards the so-called renewal is to correct the poor performance.
Political analysts and commentators have indicated repeatedly that South Africa has a large unwieldy Cabinet that does not justify the size of our population or the challenges or priorities we face as a nation as identified in the National Development Plan.
A simple comparison with other countries and Brics partners illustrates the point: India has a population of 1.45 billion, with 30 Union Cabinet members; China a population of 1.42 billion and 35 to 37 cabinet members; and Brazil a population of 213 million and 38 cabinet members.
Russia’s population is 144 million, with 32 cabinet members. The US population of 347 million has 26. The UK, with a population of 69 million, has 22. France, with a population of 68.6 million, has 35. Germany, with 84 million people, 18.
This is consistent with the notion that South Africa’s cabinet is large and unjustified. It does not appear to be based on any discernible or defensible logic. A maximum cabinet of between 15 to 22 members would easily be justifiable for South Africa.
Our administration is further complicated by a motley group called deputy ministers whose role, job descriptions and accounting are poorly defined, justified and understood by the public but seem to exist mainly as a feeding clan or cackle of hyenas on the fiscus carcass.
Amid such rampant corruption, the redundant layer must be reviewed and removed as it is clearly devoid of justification.
Finally, Gwede Mantashe has signaled that he is not available for future leadership. Perhaps others of his generation should heed his wise call and bow out gracefully?
Prof Malegapuru Makgoba is former vice-chancellor and principal of UKZN, a former health ombud and deputy chair of the National Planning Commission.