The recent decision by the Minister of Finance, Comrade Enoch Godongwana, to retract the proposed VAT increase has triggered a whirlwind of commentary—from within the African National Congress (ANC) itself, and predictably, from the Democratic Alliance (DA), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and other reactionary actors now fishing in judicial waters. While we await the judgment of the courts, it is essential to pause and interrogate not only the legal mechanics at play, but also the political climate that has allowed this technocratic adjustment to become a lightning rod for populist grandstanding and ideological recklessness.

The Legal Architecture: A Matter of Process, Not Panic

Section 77 of the Constitution governs money bills, including those adjusting VAT. These fall within the prerogative of the National Assembly, introduced exclusively by the Minister of Finance. Further, the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, 2009, outlines the steps: tabling of the bill, the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRR), and consideration by the Standing Committee on Finance. Any change—even a withdrawal—must align with these mechanisms.

From preliminary analysis of legal submissions filed by both the state and opposing parties, there is no clear indication of procedural breach. The Minister has not unilaterally altered tax rates outside the legislative process. Rather, the reversal reflects responsiveness—a recalibration following engagement, data review, and political consultation. That’s not an abdication of leadership; it is precisely what mature democracies expect from sound governance.

If anything, the legal case—still sub judice—reflects our democracy at work, not a crisis. At worst, we are at a crossroads where judicial interpretation might clarify executive authority in mid-year fiscal revisions. But even that is a far cry from the hysteria being whipped up in certain corners of the media and opposition benches.

Media Narratives and the Political Economy of Perception

Stations like 702 have turned policy complexity into ridicule, as if economic governance were a radio game show. What we are witnessing is not journalism, but editorial activism shaped by the ideological prejudices of the fourth estate—often backed by the deep pockets of monopoly capital. What better way to weaken a developmental state than by mocking its stewards while shielding corporate tax avoiders who siphon billions from the fiscus?

This approach infantilizes the public and renders decision-making a victim of soundbite populism. Public discourse is now driven not by intellectual rigor, but by who can shout “Resign!” the loudest—regardless of their grasp of fiscal multipliers, consumption smoothing, or redistributive equity.

Political Wisdom and Institutional Patience

I am deeply invested in the ANC, its renewal, and its survival. Our generational mission cannot be dictated by populist echoes and factional vendettas masquerading as policy critique. We are two months from a mid-term policy conference—the correct and constitutional platform for recalibrating direction. Yet some amongst us cannot even wait for that democratic process, choosing instead to tear down comrades in the court of public opinion. Kanti, what sort of comrades are we?

Let us revisit what it means to be a comrade and cadre. A comrade stands shoulder-to-shoulder in struggle, even amidst disagreement—committed to a shared horizon. A cadre is forged in discipline, guided by ideological clarity, and dedicated to strengthening the movement, not undermining it for Twitter applause or morning talk shows. Neither of these archetypes is compatible with the current culture of populist disruption and weaponized resignation.

In Defence of Purposeful Leadership

Godongwana’s leadership, underpinned by years of trade unionist grounding, developmental economics, and fiscal stewardship, deserves considered analysis—not kneejerk vilification. In defending him, we defend more than one man. We defend the right of leaders to lead within policy frameworks, to adapt, to engage, and to grow. That is not a betrayal of principle—it is its fulfilment.

As the youth of this country, as heirs to the democratic promise, we must rise to higher standards of engagement. Ours is not to mimic the reactionary noise of opposition benches, but to offer disciplined, generational solutions that reinforce the state, not dismantle it. Let political intuition and wisdom guide us once more—lest we cede our future to the theatre of outrage.

Stan Itshegetseng is an athlete, ANC member and current affairs commentator. He writes in his personal capacity.