By Bernell Simons

 

South Africa has just been given an interesting real-life example of what targeted, controlled funding can achieve.

More than R4.4 million has been raised to help replace unsafe pit toilets at 50 schools.

That money is being channelled towards a clearly identifiable problem: giving learners safer sanitation facilities.

Now place that against a political message being pushed by the Democratic Alliance ahead of the 2026 Local Government Elections.

 

In June, following the Auditor-General’s municipal audit outcomes, the DA said:

“Financial prudence delivers reliable water, sanitation and electricity, working roads, clean and safe streets, as well as growing local economies.” (Democratic Alliance)

 

The party also argued that where it governs, “money is spent on the people, not on politicians”, and in its discussion of Nelson Mandela Bay said a DA-led government would restore services and create jobs by “inviting the private sector in.” (Democratic Alliance)

 

And this is where the conversation gets interesting.

 

Because perhaps the debate should not simply be about whether government money or private money is better.

Perhaps the real question is:

WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY — AND CAN THE PUBLIC SEE THE RESULT?

 

The R4.4 million sanitation campaign gives us a simple example.

 

Money is raised.

 

A problem is identified.

 

Schools are identified.

 

Infrastructure is delivered.

 

Learners benefit.

 

That is a very easy chain for the public to understand, now imagine applying the same principle to municipal service delivery.

 

Money allocated for water infrastructure.

 

Where is it?

 

Money allocated for roads.

 

What was built?

 

Money allocated for sanitation.

 

Which communities benefited?

 

A contractor receives millions.

 

What exactly did taxpayers receive in return?

 

That is the accountability conversation South Africa needs and it is why the DA’s argument deserves to be debated rather than simply accepted or rejected. There is logic in the argument that private-sector involvement can bring additional expertise, investment and pressure for efficiency, but private money is not automatically clean money. The reality is, private companies can fail, projects can be poorly managed, contracts can be abused, and private funding can also disappear if oversight is weak.

 

So perhaps the strongest argument is not:

 

“Private is better, it is that whether controlled funding produces accountable delivery.”

 

That distinction matters, because government cannot outsource its constitutional responsibility to provide basic services simply because a private company is involved and private companies cannot be allowed to operate without strong public oversight simply because they are carrying the label of “private sector”.

 

The question should always be:

 

What was promised?

 

Who received the money?

 

What controls were applied?

 

What was delivered?

 

What did it cost?

 

And who answers when it fails?

 

That is where this sanitation campaign becomes more than a story about toilets, it becomes a conversation about trust. South Africans are tired of hearing about billions allocated while communities continue waiting for functioning water systems, roads, sanitation, electricity and other basic services, as people don’t experience a municipal budget as a financial document.

 

They experience it through the tap that runs dry.

 

The sewer that overflows.

 

The pothole that remains for years.

 

The streetlight that never works.

 

The refuse that isn’t collected.

 

The school toilet that is unsafe.

 

So, NovaSpeak wants to ask a simple but uncomfortable question:

 

LET’S ENGAGE:

 

Do you believe greater private-sector involvement can improve service delivery in South Africa — provided the funding is strictly controlled, transparently monitored and publicly accounted for?

 

Or do you believe government must remain solely responsible for delivering basic services, with stronger public-sector management being the real solution?

 

And perhaps the biggest question of all, would you rather have R1 billion controlled by government with weak accountability, or R500 million managed through a tightly controlled public-private partnership where every rand and every deliverable can be tracked?

 

Tell NovaSpeak what you think.

 

Keep it respectful.

 

Challenge the idea, not the person.

 

Because this election season, we shouldn’t only be asking politicians what they promise to deliver.

 

We should be asking:

“SHOW US WHERE THE MONEY GOES — AND SHOW US WHAT WE GET FOR IT.”

 

NovaSpeak | The Pink Print

We Look. We Ask. We Tell The Stories That Matter.