After 20 years of failure, why trust the state with FMD response, John?

After more than two decades of widely documented state failures from Eskom’s decline, to state capture, to failing municipalities, public trust in government competence is legitimately very low.

Now, in a significant turn, the state insists it alone must control the response to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), rejecting private sector involvement in vaccine procurement and distribution. In a media statement, Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen welcomed the High Court’s decision to deny urgent interim relief sought by Sakeliga and others, a ruling that leaves the current regulatory framework in place for now while the Department finalises its vaccination scheme.

Government argues that centralised control is necessary to ensure coordination, maintain standards, and protect South Africa’s international standing. Those goals are not in dispute.

But this is precisely where the concern lies.

A state that has, over time, been associated with major infrastructure failures, corruption scandals, and persistent service delivery breakdowns is now asking the public to trust it with a time sensitive, economically critical biosecurity programme. That is not a neutral request, it carries real risk.

A centralised vaccine strategy depends on efficiency, transparency, and technical competence. These are areas where parts of the state have, in recent years, struggled to perform consistently. If delays, bottlenecks, or mismanagement occur in the handling of FMD, the consequences would extend beyond administration, potentially affecting agriculture, food security, and export markets.

The issue, then, is not whether coordination is necessary, it clearly is. The issue is whether exclusive state control, in a context of uneven institutional capacity, is the most reliable way to achieve it.

Scepticism, in this context, is not irrational. It is shaped by experience.