Public entities must never be treated as private entities — especially when dealing with the public and responding to public outcries. Yet, in South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries, this basic principle is increasingly ignored. What we are witnessing is not just administrative failure, but a worrying culture of entitlement , where management, officials, and workers in public institutions behave as though they are doing the public a favour by simply doing their jobs. When Public Service Feels Like a Favour Artists, cultural practitioners, organisations, and ordinary citizens engage public entities seeking information, support, funding clarity, or accountability. Too often, they are met with: Dismissive attitudes Silence or delayed responses Hostility when asking questions Defensive reactions to public criticism Why has public service been reduced to an act of charity rather than a responsibility? Who gave permission for public officials to forget that they serve the publ...

The Most Confusing MGE Call Yet: Artists Apply in the Dark as the Clock Runs Out The current Mzansi Golden Economy (MGE) funding call by the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) closes today — and for many practitioners and organisations across South Africa, it may go down as the most confusing MGE call since the programme’s inception . What should have been a moment of clarity, support, and sector confidence has instead unfolded in silence. No Webinar, No Clarity, No Engagement Traditionally, DSAC has hosted information webinars to unpack funding criteria, clarify sector categories, and guide applicants through common pitfalls.  This year, no such engagement took place. As a result, organisations and artists have been left to interpret complex guidelines on their own — or rely on informal advice from officials whose guidance may not be binding during adjudication. In a sector already burdened by administrative barriers, this silence has consequences. Capacity Building:...

  Gauteng, the Arts Budget Question, and the Cost of Being Grouped Together Gauteng is home to the largest concentration of artists, creative workers, and cultural infrastructure in South Africa — yet when one follows the money, the arts remain an afterthought.  Hidden inside bloated departmental groupings and diluted by equitable share allocations, arts development in Gauteng is forced to compete for survival rather than be strategically invested in.  This is not a funding accident. It is a structural choice — and artists are paying the price. The Creative Passport is reminded of a fundamental truth about the Cultural and Creative Industries in South Africa: The problem is not only funding — it is how funding is structured, prioritised, and accounted for at provincial level. Gauteng, often seen as the heartbeat of the country’s creative economy, offers a useful case study — not because it is unique, but because its challenges mirror what is happening in many provinces. T...

What the Cultural and Creative Industries Cannot Afford to Ignore In government, nothing of consequence happens by accident. Budgets are not spent randomly. Programmes are not implemented on goodwill. Priorities are not acted on because they “sound important”. They happen because they are written into one document: the Annual Performance Plan (APP) . For too long, practitioners in the Cultural and Creative Industries have focused their energy on applications, protests, petitions, and social media outrage — while ignoring the one instrument that quietly determines whether their work will be funded, supported, monitored, or ignored for an entire financial year. If arts and culture are not in the APP, they are not a priority . Full stop. What Is an Annual Performance Plan (APP)? An Annual Performance Plan is a legally binding planning document produced by every government department and public entity. It translates: Government policy Medium-Term Strategic Frameworks Five-year Strategic Pl...

MONDAY EDITION |  UMRHABULO, POLICY & PUBLIC DISCOURSE Time to Decolonise the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 — Without Fear or Favour By Thami akaMbongo Manzana  In 1998, South Africa stood at the edge of political transition. The Cultural Institutions Act was born in a moment of compromise, continuity, and caution. It sought to stabilise institutions inherited from apartheid while slowly transforming their governance. Nearly three decades later, in 2026 , the question we must ask is no longer why the Act was written the way it was — but why it has not been fundamentally reviewed since . If we are serious about redress, decolonisation, and transformation , then the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 must be placed under the same critical lens applied to other post-apartheid legislation.  This review must be honest, unapologetic, and courageous . The Core Problem: Transformation Without Structural Disruption While the Act introduced representative councils and board...

Rethinking Accountability in South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries Funding remains one of the most contested and emotional subjects in South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries.  Each funding cycle brings hope, relief, frustration, celebration, and disappointment — often all at once. Yet beyond the scramble for applications and outcomes, a deeper question lingers:  What happens after the money is awarded? If public funds are meant to grow the sector, create jobs, and expand access, then visibility, accountability, and impact cannot be optional extras.  They must be central to how funded work is conceived, implemented, and reported. This article is not about blame alone. It is about responsibility — shared responsibility .                          Image: DSAC Logo     (Source: DSAC)  Public Money, Public Visibility The Importance of Branding, Publicity and Marketing Every funded...