South Africa’s arts funding faces political erosion that threatens creative integrity

In June 1996, the then Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology published the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage.

Then minister Ben Ngubane described the role of the state in funding the arts, culture and heritage as complex. He reminded us that while some countries had no support at all, others intervened decisively.

South Africa, after wide consultation, chose a middle path: an arm’s length model of funding, designed to safeguard freedom of expression by insulating artistic decision-making from political interference. Later that year, the Constitution affirmed this principle in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights, enshrining freedom of artistic creativity.

To give effect to this principle, distribution agencies such as the National Arts Council (NAC) and the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) were established. Their mandate was to allocate funding based on artistic merit and to develop and promote these sectors. This model was not perfect, but it was credible.

The integrity of this system began to fray in 2011, when then Minister Paul Mashatile introduced the Mzansi Golden Economy (MGE) strategy. While positioned as a bold initiative to drive job creation, social cohesion and economic growth through the arts, the MGE shifted the locus of funding decisions from independent agencies back into the department itself. In doing so, it undermined the very arm’s-length principle that had been painstakingly established.

Erosion accelerates

Today, under Minister Gayton McKenzie, this erosion has accelerated. As reported by Daily Maverick on 10 May 2026, the minister appointed a member of Parliament – who also serves as his party’s spokesperson – as chairperson of the MGE.

This appointment, made without regard for professional expertise or sectoral experience, signals a decisive abandonment of the arm’s-length model. It places political actors at the helm of funding decisions that should be guided by artistic merit, industry knowledge and cultural policy expertise.

The consequences of this shift are profound. When politicians replace practitioners and funding agencies are sidelined, the risks of corruption and policy inconsistency multiply.

More critically, artistic merit is compromised and the long-term development of these sectors is jeopardised. As those of us who have served on the boards of the NAC and the NFVF know, rebuilding credibility and trust in cultural institutions takes years – sometimes decades.

South Africa’s cultural policy framework was once admired for its principled balance between state support and artistic freedom. To abandon the arm’s length model now is to imperil not only the integrity of our arts and heritage sectors, but also the constitutional freedoms that underpin them.

If the arts are to thrive as engines of creativity, cohesion and economic vitality, funding decisions must return to the hands of those with expertise, credibility and independence to steward them responsibly. DM