Within two years, SA has gone through three rating downgrades by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and, more recently, Fitch.

The common feature across the different ratings has been the weak institutional capacity of the state to deal with challenges likely to face SA in the future, and with threats that fiscal stability could flounder. In particular, Moody’s pointed out that the state lacks the institutional capacity to deal with growing socioeconomic demands and with public-sector wage demands, which are likely to drain the fiscal resources of the state when the present wage settlement expires in less than three years’ time.

The depressed mood is made worse by persistent inequality and high unemployment. According to the recent Transformation Audit published by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, about 71% of those aged between 15 and 35 are unemployed. With the dependency ratio at nearly 25% — about four people depend on one wage earner — there is a strain on the social conditions of households and extended families, and also a deep sense of resentment. The waves of public service delivery protests in the past three years, the tragic incidents last year at Marikana and the De Doorns farm protests were all signs of a crack in the foundations of our political and economic system, with trust in government and business leadership ebbing. Since Zuma took office three years ago, there has been a strong desire for him to project leadership and inject some hope into the state of our politics, but in vain. Many wish him to succeed in his tough job of running the country in unforgiving global conditions and huge socioeconomic challenges domestically, for if he were to succeed, the gains would be ours collectively.

However, the general feeling seems to be that there is no ounce of energy or interest left in Zuma to show inspiring leadership. This is why events such as the state of the nation address have lost importance in the eyes of many. That event now attracts more curiosity for entertainment reasons — the carnival-like display of clothing fashion in all its splendour and variety.

During the state of the nation address, Zuma did not fail to meet low expectations. His speech lacked a core theme that defines his presidency. It also carried no animating ideas. Apart from the fashion parade, it was memorable for the dull detail offered in the form of a selective report-back on the promises made last year. For all the woes of the country, he could not muster the courage to take some responsibility — it was all as a result of the gloomy global environment.

Enter Gordhan with his budget.

Much of the commentary on the budget has remarked on the mixed bag and balancing act that it was. Again, given the generally low mood and downward readjustment of expectations in the country, the budget can hardly be said to be a great inspiration. The tone Gordhan set from the outset was backward-looking. He evoked the memory of the struggle and indulged in some navel-gazing about the earlier days of democracy, remembering the United Democratic Front and expressing some nostalgia about the 1994 general election. So what? Is the president’s mansion in Nkandla also a tribute to this memory of the struggle?

And what are we going to do with the fact that, since 2010, SA has slipped many notches in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index? In 2010, SA was ranked 54th out of 183 countries, where one is the cleanest and 183 the most corrupt. In 2011, SA lost 10 places, falling to 64th, and a year later it lost a further five places and is now ranked 69th.

There are no clues to these questions in either Zuma’s state of the nation address or Gordhan’s budget. It is possible, too, that the budget may have attracted a lot of interest from tenderpreneurs looking at the direction in which the fat of the allocation is flowing and how they will catch it.

While the budget vote has identified the National Development Plan as the centrepiece of government, it is not clear how the recommendations set out in it are going to be made operational. More important, there is no clarity on what the status of the National Planning Commission will be in relation to other government departments.

Breaking the culture of silos in the functioning of the government — and have everyone pulling together in the same direction — will take leadership that is weightier than what Zuma has been able to provide since he took office in 2009. 

This article appeared in the Business Day of 1 March 2013