The cabinet score cards show persistent underperformance
The FW de Klerk Foundation, News24 and the Mail & Guardian undertake cabinet performance assessments. All three systems correlate well statistically and have shown an improvement in cabinet performance since 2020, from a mean cabinet performance score of 5.21 to 5.5–5.8 in 2025. However, these encouraging improvements coincided with the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in 2024 and 2025.
Fifteen cabinet members in the GNU are underperforming, scoring below the mean or receiving a D grade or below. This number is too significant to ignore. Regrettably, 14 (FW de Klerk Foundation) or 15 (M&G) cabinet ministers continue to perform below the mean. Approximately 13 of these underperforming ministers (87%) belong to the ANC. This ANC ministerial underperformance has persisted since 2020, 17 in 2020 versus 13 in 2025.
In 2020, the cabinet was exclusively ANC. In both the M&G and FW de Klerk assessment systems, no members of the Democratic Alliance (DA) or Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) were found to be underperforming.
Despite being flawed, imperfect or complex, these three assessment systems are not valueless. They are a necessary measure to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our leadership.
In 2025, the FW de Klerk Foundation undertook, for the first time, an assessment of the national executive: the president, deputy president, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. Unlike the M&G cabinet score cards, the FW de Klerk Foundation provides both a grade and an actual numerical score. Its national executive assessment is biased towards objectivity, unlike the M&G and News24 assessments, which are biased towards subjectivity.
The FW de Klerk Foundation assessment is independent, non-partisan, merit-based, outcome-driven, evidence-based on verifiable data and peer-reviewed. It assessed each office-bearer against five dimensions drawn directly from the Constitution:
• Leadership and vision;
• Execution and impact;
• Integrity and accountability;
• Use of public resources, with section 195 as the benchmark; and
• Advancement of constitutional rights.
As a new system of assessment, the FW de Klerk Foundation adds value and a different perspective to the already established M&G and News24 systems. News24 did not provide any assessment for the cabinet in 2025. For comparison in this essay, I focus on the cabinet scores, leaving the deputy ministers’ scores aside.
The Mail & Guardian has conducted and published the Cabinet Report Cards, popularly known as the Cabinet Scores, since 1994 during the first government of national unity under President Nelson Mandela. Over time, these reports have improved and matured, becoming popular and one of the ways South Africans assess the performance and quality of their cabinet. The M&G cabinet score card assesses ministers’ performance on:
• Policy implementation;
• Service delivery;
• Budget execution; and
• Handling of national issues.
It is a respected but subjective barometer of accountability, focusing on tangible outcomes and adherence to mandates rather than just politics. There are many insights to learn from these report cards despite their shortcomings.
Successive ANC governments have promised life-style audits and cabinet performance contracts but these have not yet materialised. It is common knowledge that many politicians and the public read these reports and form opinions. Those cabinet members who score well appreciate these reports but those who score poorly often criticise the methodology. Nevertheless, the annual Cabinet Score Cards have become a reality of our political life.
Results
Since 2020, the mean cabinet performance in the M&G Cabinet Score Cards has improved from 5.2 in 2020 to 5.912 in 2024 and 5.5 in 2025. The last two values correspond with the establishment of the GNU. In 2020, the cabinet was composed exclusively of ANC members. In this assessment, 56.7% of members, or 17 cabinet members, performed below the mean of 5.2.
In 2025, the mean cabinet score of the M&G assessment increased to 5.51, following the formation of the GNU by a coalition of ten parties. In the M&G assessment, 15 cabinet members, or 46%, performed below the mean of 5.51.
In 2025, the FW de Klerk Foundation found the mean cabinet performance to be 5.85. The correlation between the two systems was statistically deemed moderate, allowing for comparisons. The intraclass correlation indicated good agreement, meaning the numerical scores between the two systems are similar.
The FW de Klerk Foundation found 14 cabinet members underperforming. In the M&G assessment, 15 cabinet ministers were performing below the mean. In the M&G assessment, 13 of the underperforming cabinet ministers were from the ANC. In the FW de Klerk Foundation, 12 underperforming cabinet members were from the ANC. The underperforming ministers closely match each other in the two assessment systems.
In 2020, the cabinet was exclusively ANC and 17 cabinet members were underperforming. Now in 2025, 14 or 15 cabinet ministers are underperforming, 12 or 13 of whom are members of the ANC. Over a period of approximately five years, 12 ANC cabinet ministers have consistently underperformed as assessed by these methods. There is no consequence management for these underperforming ministers.
It is important for the president to address this underperformance within the GNU. The president and the ANC, as part of its renewal programme, should ask profound questions of its deployees. Questions include: Why does it deploy so many underperforming cabinet ministers over such prolonged periods? Is it a question of poor qualifications, incompetence, or putting square pegs in round holes? What has this group of ministers cost taxpayers over this period? What is the ANC going to do in future regarding accountability and consequence management for these underperforming ministers?
I am grateful to Dr Nombuso Zondo (NWU) and Dr Mohanad Mohammed (UKZN) for the statistical analysis.
Professor Malegapuru Makgoba is a former health ombud and deputy chair of the National Planning Commission.