Each year, the South African Parliament issues a quiet but important invitation to the general public, inviting ordinary South Africans to submit proposals and suggestions to amend the Constitution. It’s a democratic gesture and part of the machinery that keeps our republic healthy and responsive, even if the mere gesture often goes unnoticed.
Most years, the inbox fills with familiar pleas: abolish provinces, strengthen traditional leaders, expropriate land. Then the moment passes, and the status quo prevails.
This year, we as Free SA decided to take Parliament at its word. Free SA submitted a proposal not to reimagine the Constitution from scratch, but to repair the parts where design has failed practically. We call it the Power to the People Amendment and we encourage all South Africans to engage this proposal on our website and give your inputs on it at freesa.org.za.
Our Power to the People Amendment consists of three simple solutions that will tackle three core areas of governance:
- Reducing the size of our Cabinet,
- Ending automatic monopolies by state-owned enterprises, and
- Devolving policing powers to the provinces.
Each of these reforms matters in its own right. But together, they represent a new contract between the state and its citizens, one that insists on clarity, accountability, and trust. Not trust in the State, but trust in the people as the shareholders of the future of our country to chart the future course our citizens wish to pursue.
Let me explain why we chose specifically these three amendments:
1. The Cabinet: From Noah’s Ark to Necessary Government
In the past decade, South Africa’s Cabinet has grown like a poorly tended bougainvillea—sprawling, tangled, and impossible to trim without gloves. With nearly 30 ministers and just as many deputies, we’ve reached the point where the executive feels less like a decision-making body and more like a jobs programme for political insiders.
That trend has persisted even under the new Government of National Unity. In fact, the size of the Cabinet appears to have been preserved less out of necessity than out of political arithmetic, ensuring that every coalition partner, no matter how modest their mandate given by the South African people, secures a seat at the table.
Take, for instance, the case of GOOD, which secured just over 60 000 votes and a single parliamentary seat, yet still managed to land a full ministerial post. Whatever one thinks of Auntie Pat’s political acumen, this is not representative democracy, and it does nothing but bleed South Africans dry footing this outrageous bill with very little in return in terms of good governance and sound policy development.
This bloat is unaffordable and it sets a structurally dangerous precedent. The more seats at the table, the harder it is to agree on anything meaningful. Ministries overlap, departments duplicate, and accountability disappears into the bureaucratic thicket. And as citizens, we’re left wondering: who exactly is responsible for what?
Our amendment proposes a cap: no more than 15 ministers and 15 deputies. That’s it!
A smaller Cabinet forces the President and the country to ask hard questions: What is the core business of government? What functions can be consolidated? Which portfolios exist only because they serve political factions, not public needs?
This is not austerity for its own sake. It is discipline entrenched in constitutional design. A lean executive sharpens focus, prioritizes efficiency and accountability, strengthens ministerial leadership, and sends a clear message that governance is not a spoils system. It’s a responsibility towards every South African citizen, a responsibility that must be earned.
2. State-Owned Enterprises: Ending Monopoly by Default
For decades, South Africa’s economy has laboured and subsequently been crushed under the weight of state-owned giants like Eskom, Transnet, and SAA, each tasked with delivering critical infrastructure while operating with the monopoly protections of a bygone era.
These state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were created with nation-building ambitions, but in practice, many have devolved into bloated monopolies that stifle innovation, shield inefficiency, and drain the public purse. Consider the fact that SOEs have cost South African taxpayers approximately R520.6 billion in bailouts over the last 10 years. The constitutional order has allowed it, often by default rather than deliberation.
Our amendment flips the logic. It proposes that no SOE may hold a monopoly unless it is explicitly authorised for national security reasons, by a 75% majority in Parliament.
We call this reverse gatekeeping. It changes the constitutional default from monopoly to market, from centralisation to incentivized competition. If a state enterprise is essential, say, for grid stability or defence, then the case must be made publicly and decisively. Otherwise, the field should be open.
This is in our view certainly not blind privatisation. It is constitutional transparency and once again, a constitutional design to enhance competition and choice. Let the state compete where it must. Where it does not need to dominate, it should still compete, but fairly, and as a consequence we then let the ingenuity of South Africans flourish, exercising an appropriate role in conducting oversight and regulation where needs exist, rather than stifling growth with over-regulation and the desire for sole state control.
We live in a country where 32% of South Africans are unemployed, where the youth fight over economic scraps to survive. Allowing competitive participation in infrastructure, logistics, and energy is not a neoliberal experiment.
It is doing something different, not stubbornly doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We are at an impasse and must choose a new path to preserve a brighter economic future for all South Africans.
3. Policing: Closer to the People, Safer for All
Perhaps the most pressing reform of the three proposals is policing. South Africans are not only frustrated with the police. They are frightened of them. South Africans’ hearts race when they see blue lights in the rearview mirror of their car. They do not get a sense of safety when the men in blue show up. This is not a police service that can serve its communities adequately.
As it stands, all operational policing decisions stem from Pretoria, with local commanders hemmed in by national policy, bureaucracy, and political interference. This makes law enforcement slow, unaccountable, and deeply disconnected from the direct communities that the police is meant to serve. The fact is that the policing needs of Kimberley, Klerksdorp, and KwaDukuza differ vastly, and our policing structure should reflect this diversity of needs.
Our amendment proposes that each province may establish and run its own police service, complete with its own commissioner, civilian oversight, and legislative mandate. The national government would retain responsibility for matters like border control, intelligence, and tackling organised crime, but everyday policing would belong to the people and governments closest to the problem.
This is not federalism for the sake of it because we are ideologically hellbent on decentralisation. It is subsidiarity—a principle embedded in our Constitution and in sound democratic practice. It is a recognition that change in South Africa is necessary, particularly when it comes to policing and keeping our communities safe from the rampage of crime crippling our nation.
Decisions should be made at the lowest competent level, close to the ground, close to the people, and close to the root cause of the problem. And when it comes to fighting house robberies in Mitchells Plain or illegal mining in Mpumalanga, that level is not the national ministry.
Some will worry about fragmentation. Others will ask whether all provinces are ready. But the current system is already broken—uniform, yes, but uniformly failing dismally. Reform means accepting differences, and supporting those provinces that need time or resources to build capacity. That’s what co-operative governance is for.
Why These Three? Because Form Shapes Function—and Signals Intent
We chose these reforms not just for their consequences, but for their symbolism.
A smaller Cabinet says: power is not infinite; it must be rationed, substance-focused, and transparent.
An end to state monopolies says: economic life and participation belong to everyone, not just those with government access.
And localised policing says: your safety is too important to be managed from afar.
Together, they signal a shift from a command-and-control central state to a servant state with direct accountability to its citizens: one that limits itself, respects the public’s ingenuity, and trusts local institutions.
Constitutional reform
Constitutional reform should never be a tool for vanity politics. Nor should it be avoided for fear of political risk. It is a mechanism of democratic self-correction and something we must use wisely, but not shy away from.
Free SA believes that the Power to the People Amendment reflects not a radical break with the 1996 Constitution, but a fulfilment of its deeper promise: namely accountable governance, responsive institutions, and a fair shot for all.
The road to constitutional amendment will not be easy. Passing a constitutional amendment requires consensus, discipline, and sustained public pressure and engagement. But if we care about the state of our Republic and if we still believe in its future, then there is no better time than the present to act, and demand the change that South Africa so fundamentally needs.
The views of the writers are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend