UNAPOLOGETIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC FUNDING
A Non-Negotiable Imperative for South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries
Public funding is not an act of generosity. It is a constitutional obligation, administered through government and public institutions on behalf of the people of South Africa.
In the Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), where public resources are often the lifeline for artistic production, employment, and cultural preservation, accountability must be unapologetic, uncompromising, and consistently enforced.
Anything less weakens institutions, discredits the sector, and ultimately punishes practitioners who operate with integrity.
Why Accountability in the CCIs Cannot Be Optional
The Cultural and Creative Industries occupy a complex space in society. They are economic drivers, job creators, educators, activists, and custodians of identity and heritage.
Yet they are also among the most precarious sectors, frequently forced to justify their value within policy and budgetary debates.
When accountability collapses in the CCIs:
The sector is portrayed as disorganised or irresponsible
Public trust in funding programmes declines
Treasury and policymakers become increasingly cautious or punitive
Legitimate practitioners lose opportunities because of systemic failures
Accountability, therefore, is not a bureaucratic burden. It is the foundation upon which sustainability, credibility, and growth are built.
Shared Accountability: Beyond a One-Sided Narrative
A dangerous tendency within public discourse is the assumption that accountability rests only with government or only with beneficiaries. In reality, accountability in public funding is shared and interdependent.
Government’s Role
Government departments must:
Provide clear, consistent policy direction
Ensure transparent funding criteria and processes
Communicate timelines and decisions honestly
Act decisively when systems fail
Policy uncertainty, delayed payments, and inconsistent interpretation of guidelines undermine the credibility of public funding frameworks.
Public Entities and Institutions
Public institutions tasked with administering funds must:
Apply policies consistently and fairly
Maintain transparent adjudication processes
Keep proper records and audit trails
Communicate with respect and professionalism
When institutions become defensive, opaque, or dismissive of public concern, they betray their public mandate.
Beneficiaries’ Responsibilities
Beneficiaries must also accept uncomfortable truths:
Public funds come with obligations, not entitlements
Reporting is not a favour — it is a legal requirement
Governance failures by beneficiaries affect the entire sector
Non-compliance weakens future funding arguments
Accountability cannot be demanded only when funding is declined and ignored once funding is approved.
The Public Finance Management Act: Knowledge as Power
The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) is often viewed by creatives as distant, technical, or irrelevant. This misunderstanding has cost the sector dearly.
The PFMA exists to:
Prevent irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure
Enforce consequence management
Protect public resources
Define responsibilities across the funding value chain
For Cultural and Creative practitioners, understanding the PFMA is not about becoming accountants — it is about protecting projects, institutions, and careers. It explains why:
Institutions demand compliance
Deviations require justification
Audits matter
Officials are legally constrained
Lack of familiarity with the PFMA does not shield anyone from its consequences — neither officials nor beneficiaries.
Case Studies: Patterns That Must Be Confronted
Across multiple funding cycles and programmes, recurring patterns continue to emerge:
Funds released without adequate monitoring mechanisms
Projects approved without realistic implementation plans
Poor financial management at beneficiary level
Weak internal controls within institutions
Delayed consequence management for confirmed irregularities
These are not isolated incidents. They are systemic patterns that demand systemic solutions.
The absence of accountability does not only result in financial loss — it damages reputations, discourages excellence, and entrenches mistrust.
Why Activism Must Be Informed by Governance Knowledge
Activism in the CCIs has played a crucial role in exposing injustice and institutional failures. However, activism disconnected from governance frameworks, legislation, and policy often loses strategic power.
Effective advocacy must ask:
Which law was violated?
Which policy was misapplied?
Who holds delegated authority?
What accountability mechanism applies?
When activism is grounded in data, legislation, and policy analysis, it becomes difficult to ignore and impossible to dismiss.
Reframing Accountability as Sector Protection
Accountability is often framed as a threat. In reality, it is a protective mechanism.
It protects:
Artists from arbitrary decision-making
Institutions from reputational collapse
Public funds from abuse
Future generations from inheriting broken systems
Without accountability, the CCIs remain vulnerable to political shifts, budget cuts, and public scepticism.
A Call for a Cultural Shift
South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries must move beyond selective outrage and towards a culture of collective responsibility.
This requires:
Institutions that lead with transparency
Practitioners who embrace compliance
Academics who contribute evidence-based critique
Activists who engage systems strategically
Accountability must no longer be negotiated, delayed, or diluted. It must be unapologetic, because the future of the sector depends on it.
Public funding is a trust. How we honour that trust will determine whether the Cultural and Creative Industries are taken seriously — not only as artists, but as stewards of public value.
.jpeg)
Comments