The CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS ACT
MONDAY EDITION | UMRHABULO, POLICY & PUBLIC DISCOURSE
Time to Decolonise the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 — Without Fear or Favour
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
In 1998, South Africa stood at the edge of political transition. The Cultural Institutions Act was born in a moment of compromise, continuity, and caution. It sought to stabilise institutions inherited from apartheid while slowly transforming their governance.
Nearly three decades later, in 2026, the question we must ask is no longer why the Act was written the way it was — but why it has not been fundamentally reviewed since.
If we are serious about redress, decolonisation, and transformation, then the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 must be placed under the same critical lens applied to other post-apartheid legislation.
This review must be honest, unapologetic, and courageous.
The Core Problem: Transformation Without Structural Disruption
While the Act introduced representative councils and boards, it largely protected the geographic, economic, and symbolic power of apartheid-era cultural institutions.
Most declared Cultural Institutions remain:
Located in historically white, urban centres
Beneficiaries of guaranteed baseline funding
Insulated from the realities facing township and rural cultural spaces
Transformation has focused on who sits at the table, not where the table is located — nor who was historically locked out of the room.
Declaration of Cultural Institutions: A Question of Geography and Justice
One of the most urgent areas for review is Section 3: Declaration of Cultural Institutions.
Key Question:
Why are Cultural Institutions still overwhelmingly concentrated in areas that benefited from apartheid spatial planning?
In 2026, it is no longer defensible that:
Township-based theatres, museums, and community arts centres remain outside the Act
Rural cultural spaces are treated as “projects” rather than institutions
Infrastructure built and sustained by communities for decades remains invisible to national policy
Decolonisation demands spatial justice.
The Act must explicitly allow — and actively prioritise — the declaration of cultural institutions in townships, villages, and historically marginalised communities.
Community Arts Centres: From Margins to Institutions
The distinction between Community Arts Centres and Cultural Institutions has become increasingly artificial.
The precedent already exists:
Windybrow Arts Centre transitioned into a declared Cultural Institution
This raises uncomfortable but necessary questions:
How many Community Arts Centres already meet the criteria of cultural institutions?
Who decides what qualifies as “national significance”?
Why is excellence in township spaces still treated as exceptional rather than normal?
A reviewed Act must create clear, transparent pathways for Community Arts Centres to be:
Upgraded
Declared
Properly funded as Cultural Institutions
Anything less entrenches inequality under the guise of administrative categorisation.
Funding Architecture: Perpetuating Old Privileges
Declared Cultural Institutions enjoy:
Predictable funding streams
Institutional stability
Policy protection
Meanwhile, Community Arts Centres operate under:
Short-term grants
Inconsistent provincial allocations
High compliance with low security
A 2026 review must confront this imbalance head-on:
Should historical advantage continue to determine baseline funding?
Why is sustainability assumed for some institutions but tested for others?
Is the current model aligned with constitutional commitments to equality and redress?
If the Act is not reviewed, funding inequality becomes legislated inequality.
Governance and Accountability: Representation Is Not Enough
The Act emphasises board composition and ministerial appointments — but says far less about:
Community accountability
Public value
Local relevance
In a decolonised framework, Cultural Institutions must be accountable not only to the Minister, but to:
Surrounding communities
Emerging practitioners
National transformation goals
Governance must move beyond compliance and into public service ethics.
1998 Was Transitional. 2026 Must Be Transformational.
It is understandable — even necessary — that the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 was cautious. South Africa was negotiating continuity to avoid collapse.
But 2026 is not a transitional moment.
It is a moment of reckoning.
To refuse to review the Act now is to:
Protect historical privilege
Silence legitimate calls for redress
Delay justice under bureaucratic language
We cannot keep apologising for the past while legislating its advantages into the present.
A Call to Action: Review Without Fear or Favour
The review of the Cultural Institutions Act must:
Be public and participatory
Include township and rural practitioners
Interrogate spatial, financial, and symbolic power
Be honest about what is working — and what is failing
Decolonisation is not about destruction.
It is about redistribution, recognition, and repair.
If we are serious about redefining and repositioning the cultural sector, then the review of the Cultural Institutions Act is not optional — it is overdue.
Monday has spoken. The question is: who is listening?
.jpeg)
Comments