UNSOLICITED FUNDING, SPECIAL PROJECTS & FLAGSHIP PROGRAMMES
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ADDRESS
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
There is an uncomfortable conversation that the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) and many of its public entities have avoided for far too long.
It is a conversation about Unsolicited Funding, Special Projects and Flagship Programmes.
For years, artists, filmmakers, heritage practitioners, publishers, musicians, cultural organisations and creative entrepreneurs have fought over limited public funding through open calls. They submit lengthy applications, comply with strict eligibility criteria, wait months for adjudication, and then anxiously await public announcements.
That is how public funding should work.
Or so we are told.
But there appears to be another world operating alongside the public one, a world that many ordinary practitioners know little about. A world of discretionary funding mechanisms, special allocations and flagship initiatives that are far less visible than the annual funding calls.
The question is simple:
Who knows these opportunities exist?
Two Funding Systems?
South Africa appears to have developed two different funding ecosystems.
The first is the one everyone knows.
Applications open.
The public applies.
Panels adjudicate.
Results are published.
The second is far less understood.
Projects emerge under the banner of Special Projects, Flagship Programmes or Unsolicited Funding.
Many practitioners only hear about these opportunities long after funding has already been allocated, if they hear about them at all.
The obvious question is:
How does one qualify?
Where are these opportunities advertised?
Who decides who gets invited?
What criteria are used?
If these are public funds, why do so many people in the sector know so little about them?
The Cost of Silence
This is not merely about money.
It is about trust.
Every year creatives are told there is insufficient funding.
Every year organisations close.
Festivals disappear.
Community arts centres collapse.
Emerging filmmakers abandon projects.
Writers self-publish because support is unavailable.
Young musicians give up.
Meanwhile, millions of rand continue to flow through funding streams that remain largely invisible to the broader creative sector.
If these programmes are legitimate and there is every reason to expect that they are administered lawfully then transparency should strengthen, not weaken, public confidence.
Why should artists have to discover these opportunities through whispers, rumours or personal relationships?
Public money should never rely on private networks.
Is the Playing Field Really Level?
George Orwell's Animal Farm warned us about a society where everyone was supposedly equal, but some somehow became "more equal than others."
That comparison feels increasingly relevant.
Many organisations compete in open funding rounds year after year, often unsuccessfully.
Others seem absent from these public competitions.
Instead, they appear under Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs), Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs), partnership announcements and special project allocations.
Again, legitimate partnerships are part of government work.
The issue is not whether partnerships should exist.
The issue is whether every eligible South African has a fair opportunity to participate in them.
If opportunities are known only to a select few, can government genuinely claim equal access?
Transparency Is Not an Attack
Whenever questions like these are raised, they are too often dismissed as complaints from unsuccessful applicants.
That misses the point entirely.
This conversation is not about attacking institutions.
It is about protecting them.
Transparency is the best defence against suspicion.
If every Special Project allocation can withstand public scrutiny, then publish it.
If every Unsolicited Funding decision followed a fair process, explain it.
If every Flagship Programme selection was objective, show the criteria.
Accountability should never be feared.
It should be embraced.
Publish Everything
The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture and every public entity including the National Arts Council (NAC), the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), the National Heritage Council (NHC) and others entrusted with public resources should consider publishing, annually and proactively:
Every beneficiary of Unsolicited Funding.
Every beneficiary of Special Projects.
Every Flagship Programme allocation.
The amount awarded.
The assessment criteria used.
The approving authority.
The reasons each project qualified.
The provinces and sectors represented.
All MOAs and MOUs linked to public funding, subject to legitimate legal and privacy requirements.
Why should taxpayers need to submit Promotion of Access to Information requests simply to know where their money has gone?
The Promise That Never Materialised
When Minister Gayton McKenzie assumed office, he promised to expose those who had benefited from public arts funding.
Many welcomed that commitment.
Instead, much of what eventually entered the public domain consisted of information that had already been published through ordinary funding processes.
But that was never the real question.
The real question concerns the funding streams that have historically attracted far less public attention.
Who has benefited from discretionary allocations?
Who has received repeated Special Project funding?
How much has been spent over the years?
How were those decisions reached?
Those answers remain largely absent from the national conversation.
Who Is Really Dependent?
There is another irony.
Artists who repeatedly apply through open funding calls are often criticised as being dependent on government.
Yet those who benefit through less visible funding streams rarely receive the same criticism.
Why?
If government funding creates dependency, should that standard not apply consistently?
Or does the criticism only apply to those who queue publicly while others enter through a different door?
Public Money Demands Public Accountability
Government funding is not private generosity.
It is not a favour.
It is not charity.
It is taxpayers' money entrusted to public institutions for the public good.
Every cent allocated through DSAC and its entities should be capable of surviving public scrutiny.
That is not an unreasonable expectation.
It is the constitutional standard.
South Africa's creative sector does not need more secrecy.
It does not need more whispers.
It does not need insiders and outsiders.
It needs transparent systems that inspire confidence, create equal opportunities and remove any perception that access depends on proximity rather than merit.
The question is no longer whether these funding streams exist.
The question is whether government has the courage to make every aspect of them as transparent as the annual funding calls.
Until that happens, the perception of two funding systems will continue to undermine confidence in institutions that should exist to serve every creative equally.
The creative sector deserves answers.
The taxpayers deserve answers.
And government owes the country those answers.
Not tomorrow.
Now.
.jpeg)
Comments