MALEGAPURU MAKGOBA | Cabinet score cards are dismal, but the GNU is turning things around

From May 1994 to May 2024, South Africa was governed by a single dominant party, the African National Congress (ANC). However, during the first half of our democracy, South Africans were positive, hopeful, excited and often described as “punching above their weight” globally.

In 2010, the National Planning Commission (NPC), chaired by minister Trevor Manuel was established. The NPC produced a Diagnostic Report and later a National Development Plan. The plan was unanimously adopted and described as our lodestar. It identified three critical priorities: inequality, poverty and unemployment.

Then state capture ensued, unemployment got worse, poverty became recalcitrant, economic growth slowed down, corruption and crime rocketed as the cost of living rose. All these were lived experiences under ANC leadership and governance.

Then in the 2024 national elections the electorate chose the multiparty as opposed to a single dominant party pathway. The ANC majority was reduced to under 40.18%. To his credit President Cyril Ramaphosa opted for the government of national unity (GNU).

There have been questions and criticisms within political parties and the public as to the value and correctness of the GNU and its composition.

In his state of the nation address (Sona), the president mentioned only the GNU and avoided naming parties. He listed several positive concrete developments that have and are emerging since the establishment of the GNU, such as the highest senior certificate pass rate in our history, signs of positive economic growth and improving global ratings.

It is no longer in doubt that the introduction of the GNU has improved cabinet performance. This improvement bodes well and is necessary for the evolution of our democracy.

The GNU has focused on inclusive economic growth, job creation, poverty reduction and tackling the high cost of living and creating an ethical capable development. All the basic elements for these priorities are now in place.

South Africa has three independent surveys of annual cabinet performance assessment, the FW de Klerk Foundation and two by media houses. All three surveys correlate well statistically and have shown an improvement in cabinet performance since 2020, from a mean cabinet performance score of 5.2 to 5.9 in 2025.

However, these encouraging improvements coincided only with the formation of the GNU in 2024 and 2025. It is safe now to conclude that the GNU has improved cabinet performance and made a significant contribution to the trajectory of the country.

In 2020, the cabinet was composed of ANC members exclusively. In the Mail & Guardian (M&G) assessment, 56.7% of members or 17 cabinet members performed below the mean of 5.2.

In December 2025, the mean cabinet score increased to 5.5 in the M&G survey. This follows the formation of the GNU by a coalition of 10 parties. In this assessment, 15 cabinet members or 46% performed below the mean of 5.5.

In 2025, the De Klerk Foundation found the mean cabinet performance improved to 5.9. The foundation found 14 cabinet members underperforming. It determined that of these, 12 were from the ANC.

One newspaper survey found 15 cabinet ministers were performing below the mean, and that 13 of the underperforming cabinet ministers were from the ANC.

So over five years, a minimum of about 12 ANC cabinet ministers were found underperforming as assessed by these surveys. To date, there has been no consequence management for these underperforming ministers.

Approximately 86% of underperforming cabinet ministers belonged to the ANC in 2025. This ANC ministerial underperformance has persisted since 2020. There were no members of the Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party in the GNU that were found to be underperforming in all the surveys. The question is, why have South Africans tolerated this degree of underperformance at great cost to the taxpayer?

With renewed energy and boldness the president demonstrated in the last Sona in February that it’s important that he confronts this persistent ANC underperformance within the GNU. Importantly, the president, and the ANC as a critical part of its renewal programme, should ask profound questions of its deployees. Their improved performance will no doubt enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNU in focusing on national priorities.

While other parties within the GNU have brought new energy and perspectives, members of the ANC have remained tone deaf and unable to up their performance.

So why has the ANC persistently deployed so many underperforming cabinet ministers over such prolonged periods? Is it a matter of poor qualifications, incompetence or of putting square pegs in round holes? Is this the prize of incumbency, balancing party factions or ‘it’s our time to eat’ phenomenon? Can the country or nation afford to carry so much deadwood amid rampant poor service delivery? Why has there been no consequence management from the leadership of this group? What has this group of ministers cost the taxpayer over this period? What is the ANC going to do in future with these underperforming ministers in terms of accountability and consequence management?

Their imperfection and complexity does not negate nor render current performance assessment surveys valueless or useless in a young evolving democracy. They are a necessary tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our cabinet leadership.

While other parties within the GNU have brought new energy and perspectives, members of the ANC have remained tone deaf and unable to up their performance.

Could the establishment of the GNU be the reason the fortunes of our country are starting to turn around positively as articulated by the president during the Sona? From this brief analysis, the answer is a resounding yes.

In 2025, the FW de Klerk Foundation undertook for the first time an assessment of the national executive ― the president, deputy president, the cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. Unlike the other cabinet score card systems, the foundation provides both a grade and an actual numerical score.

The foundation’s national executive assessment is biased towards objectivity unlike the other assessments systems that are biased towards subjectivity. The foundation’s assessment is independent, non-partisan, based on merit, and outcomes, and is evidence-based on verifiable data. It is peer-reviewed. It assessed each office-bearer against five dimensions drawn directly from the constitution:

• Leadership and vision
• Execution and impact
• Integrity and accountability
• Use of public resources (with section 195 as the benchmark)
• Advancement of constitutional rights

It is common knowledge that many politicians and the public read these survey reports and form opinions. High-scoring cabinet members like or are inspired by these survey reports, but those who score poorly find faults with the methodology and dispute these surveys’ results. Be that as it may, the annual cabinet score cards remain useful as an indication of our cabinet’s performance.

Prof MW Makgoba, Professor Emeritus at UKZN, former health ombud, former vice-chancellor and principal of UKZN