subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now
Picture: 123RF/ZEF ART
Picture: 123RF/ZEF ART

Over the past 15 years there has been a per capita reduction in government spending. Reduced spending, geared towards shrinking budget deficits, is often referred to as “fiscal consolidation” by authorities but it can also be understood as growing austerity measures, which present a stumbling block for the realisation of socioeconomic rights in SA.

Socioeconomic rights are rights that give people access to the basic resources and services required to lead a dignified life. These interdependent rights allow for a full human experience such as access to food, healthcare, shelter and land. The inclusion of socioeconomic rights in the 1996 constitution is a measure to combat the lasting effects of a social and economic order built on unjust acts of colonialism, which intentionally created an unequal society. 

Socioeconomic rights are enshrined in the constitution, which demonstrates that these rights are fundamental to SA’s democratic framework. The preamble to our constitution records this commitment and declares the founding values of our society to be human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms. The bill of rights mandates that the state must “respect, protect, promote and fulfil” the rights outlined within it, thereby creating an obligation for government to allocate adequate resources for the realisation of these rights. However, the enforcement and realisation of socioeconomic rights is largely qualified, and stakeholders aspire to achieve them over time, subject to the availability of resources. 

Accordingly, a balance is struck by allowing for certain limitations to be placed on certain rights under specific circumstances on the condition that these limitations must meet a stringent rationality test. To this end, if austerity measures fail to maintain a rational connection to their intended purpose they could be deemed unconstitutional.  Courts may intervene to ensure the rights are not unjustly curtailed and that any limitations imposed are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.

The Constitutional Court has in numerous judgments when dealing with socioeconomic rights echoed the importance of our founding values. It was held in the Grootboom case that the people of SA are committed to the attainment of social justice and the improvement of the quality of life for everyone. This case grapples with the realisation of these aspirations for it concerns the state’s constitutional obligations in relation to housing: a constitutional issue of fundamental importance to the development of SA’s new constitutional order.

Austerity measures in SA have become a prevalent feature in the country’s socioeconomic and political framework, particularly following its transition to democracy in 1994.

Austerity measures also take the form of fiscal policies that are implemented by a state to resolve debt and growth issues amid economic stagnation. Common austerity measures include spending cuts and regressive tax increases which, it is argued, lead to economic harm rather than relief. As SA grapples with economic challenges, the contentious nature of austerity measures continues to elicit strong reactions and calls for a re-evaluation of fiscal policies in favour of human rights-orientated alternatives.

Austerity measures in SA have become a prevalent feature in the country’s socioeconomic and political framework, particularly following its transition to democracy in 1994. Public discourse around austerity has also raised significant concerns about the lack of transparency and inclusivity in the budgeting process, often excluding the very communities most affected by the policies. Critics argue that without meaningful public participation, austerity measures risk perpetuating inequalities and further marginalising vulnerable populations.   

Similarly, the implementation of austerity measures in SA has sparked significant public debate, raising concerns about their effect on vulnerable populations and socioeconomic rights. Austerity measures disproportionately affect low-income households, particularly in the health and education sectors, reversing progress made since 1994.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has called for a reassessment of these policies, emphasising the need for progressive, revenue-generating tax reforms and renewed commitment to fulfilling human rights obligations as the steady decline in progressive policies would lead to social unrest.

In 2021 the country faced unprecedented unrest marked by violent protests and looting, particularly in the provinces of Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. This turmoil resulted in significant economic losses estimated at R20bn, exacerbating an already fragile economic landscape that was recovering  from the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The 2021 July unrest was a significant flashpoint with regard to the effects of austerity measures. The aftermath highlighted the vulnerabilities in SA’s social support system, underscoring the catastrophic effect cuts to social programmes and services could have on economic, social and cultural rights. Reduced expenditure in this regard has proven time and again to result in a fractured and unsettled social order.  

The rationale behind austerity suggests that reducing public expenditure will deplete savings for private investment.  However, this perspective fails to consider that during economic downturns reducing public spending often exacerbates the contraction of GDP, ultimately resulting in higher debt-to-GDP ratios. Economic theorists such as Simon Wren-Lewis emphasise that austerity leads to involuntary unemployment and a more significant negative output gap, indicating that fiscal consolidation can be harmful if implemented during inappropriate economic conditions.

Detrimental effect

Austerity measures continue to have a detrimental effect on economic growth and social equity. These measures aimed at addressing fiscal deficits, can lead to severe economic and human costs, particularly during a period of recession. SA’s relatively high debt to GDP ratio of 71.4% in 2022/23, along with expensive interest payments, has prompted discussions on the sustainability of government spending.  The rushed and across-the-board expenditure cuts are not only ineffective but can also lead to staff shortages and the closure of essential services.  

A general global trend in relation to austerity measures is that they substantially and disproportionately affect marginalised groups. After budget cuts in Greece, cases of HIV infection surged by 52% due to the reduction of funding for needle exchange programmes, while suicide rates also rose sharply. Global trends record more stagnant wages and rising unemployment across several countries, including Ireland, Portugal and Spain, undermining the social fabric and increasing inequality.

Austerity measures are often in conflict with the obligations of human rights frameworks such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Although fiscal consolidation is not expressly prohibited, it must align with policies that respect and promote human rights. This is particularly important in ensuring that the most vulnerable populations are not unduly affected by budget cuts. The UN’s sustainable development goals further emphasise the need for sustainable economic policies that support developing countries in achieving long term debt sustainability while prioritising human wellbeing over financial metrics. 

The promise of the SA constitution is a transformative reality for all. Negative attitudes towards social protections, compounded by growing austerity measures, not only slow the progressive realisation of socioeconomic rights, but actively counter the gains that have already been made. The effects of the above are well recorded and will continue to result in social unrest and long legacies of underdevelopment in the country.

Similarly, the gendered and racialised effects of this issue, in light of SA’s history, provide a compelling argument for why austerity measures and budget cuts ought to be increasingly viewed as a threat to the democratic order of SA.

• Ngqulunga is a legal researcher, social activist and columnist, and Lwanga an admitted attorney and social activist. 

subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.