On State Paternalism And The DA’s Illiberal Gamble

No liberal organisation should compromise the integrity of a key pillar of liberalism in this manner.

Against the backdrop of the anti-gambling crusade in South Africa, the National Assembly recently held a debate on the so-called “gambling crisis” and the need for stricter regulation of interactive gambling to reduce addiction and protect vulnerable citizens. This debate was sponsored by Rise Mzansi, which has long been at the centre of a campaign to raise awareness about the issue and push for regulation.

Brief overview of gambling legislation

For context, land-based gambling and sports betting (both land-based and online) in the country are regulated as per the National Gambling Act of 2004, which replaces the 1996 Act. They are overseen by the National Gambling Board (NGB), which has provincial divisions that are responsible for issuing gambling licences and ensuring compliance with national norms, rules, and standards.

However, interactive or online casino gambling, which is the main target of the current crusade, remains technically illegal as per the 2004 Act. While the Gambling Amendment Act of 2008 is meant to regulate it, it has yet to come into effect.

This is the gap that Rise Mzansi and other organisations are arguing must be filled. They are essentially calling for interactive gambling, which currently operates in a legal grey area, to be legalised and brought under a stringent regulatory regime.

Proposed reforms and reactions to call for stricter regulation

Some of Rise Mzansi’s proposed reforms – which apply to all the three types of gambling - include restricting advertising hours, mandating gambling operators to allocate 40% of their marketing spend to promote responsible gambling, raising provincial gambling taxes to at least 8%, and imposing a sin tax of 10%. For what is a liberal organisation on other social issues , Rise Mzansi’s paternalistic and punitive position on this topic is jarring, yet not surprising if one views it through the lens of political point-scoring.

While the conservatives in the ACDP and the FF Plus did not contribute to the debate, it goes without saying that their position is probably aligned with Rise Mzansi. Interestingly, as Thokozani Langa of the IFP noted that “freedom must be matched with responsibility”, his ultimate position reflects his party’s social conservatism.

Unsurprisingly, both the EFF and the MK, which are united in their open disdain for free enterprise, share Rise Mzansi’s position, with both organisations calling for stricter measures that include a complete advertising ban on all types of gambling and tighter controls on financial flows. The ANC, which is yet to promulgate the Gambling Amendment Act of 2008, is preoccupied with defending its inaction for seventeen years while simultaneously affirming the need for regulation.

The absence of opposition and the DA’s inconsistency

What is clear beyond any reasonable doubt is that there is no opposition to the anti-gambling crusade in Parliament. The one organisation that should be a dissenting voice, the DA - which professes to be liberal – is not just in agreement with those who are calling for legalisation and regulation. It is also, paradoxically, a sponsor of legislation that calls for the latter.

Beyond its MP Roger Chance, who also worryingly agreed with a uniform ban on gambling advertising during the debate, the DA is the author of the Remote Gambling Bill, which was introduced in April 2024 with the intention of regulating interactive gambling.

Aside from the Bill’s many clauses that span licensing, standards, and player protection, one of its more troubling provisions appears under Section 46, which deals with advertising. It grants the Minister of Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition (in this case) broad discretionary power to prescribe, through regulation, the manner and form of interactive gambling and to determine whether advertising is targeted at the general public. The provision’s language is notably vague and subjective, and it effectively grants the Minister unchecked authority to define and restrict advertising through regulation.

This mirrors a concerning trend that has already been identified by the Free Market Foundation in the Tobacco Bill, where law-making - a function of Parliament - is at risk of being encroached upon by the executive that could then rule by decree rather than through law. It is unconstitutional because it undermines the principle of the separation of powers, which is a core component of liberalism.

That the DA has replicated this trend in another bill is disappointing, to say the least. No liberal organisation should compromise the integrity of a key pillar of liberalism in this manner.

On liberalism and the state’s legitimate role

And “pragmatism”, which has increasingly become a convenient pre-text for prioritising politics over principle, holds no sway on a topic like gambling. As I’ve noted elsewhere, liberalism’s position on a vice such as gambling is both clear and coherent.

People can overindulge, as many are in South Africa out of desperation, and the consequences of such overindulgence can be profoundly negative.

However, the excesses of interactive gambling, which at their core stem from voluntary behaviour, require a response that does not involve expanding the state’s power into the realms of free enterprise and individual choice under the guise of “protecting people from themselves”.

It is, after all, the late giant Milton Friedman reminds us that the state exists not to protect people from themselves, but to protect them from others who may attempt to attack their core freedoms.

The state does not exist to limit how much advertising of a particular product or service people see in a day. If we accept the bizarre suggestion that interactive gambling advertising somehow overrides individual agency, then we must necessarily accept it for every other form of advertising.

The state also does not exist – quite frankly – to parent young people or minors. It is, and should be, the responsibility of families to protect their own from exposure and ensure that they do not develop potentially harmful habits. Beyond this, communities and civil society have a critical role to play in building the kind of society that many mistakenly expect the state to create.

Where unscrupulous interactive gambling operators engage in fraud and cheating, it is then the legitimate role of the state to hold them accountable and prosecute where necessary. What should not be imposed is yet another blanket regulatory regime that infringes on both free enterprise and individual choice.

Thinking beyond paternalistic regulation

While I will not arrogantly claim to have all the answers, a starting point for addressing the so-called “gambling crisis” outside the state lies in South Africa’s socio-economic crisis, which has effectively locked millions of able-bodied people out of the labour market and driven them to interactive gambling as a means of generating income. If we accept that desperation is the core driver of the prevalence of interactive gambling, then it follows that tackling the socio-economic crisis can deliver real and meaningful change.

As a key player in the GNU, the DA should focus on agitating for systemic reform that drives economic growth and job creation in the country. It should not, as is the case now, be at the forefront of advancing a fundamentally illiberal agenda alongside other organisations in the name of public protection.

There is no question about the excesses of interactive gambling. But what must be resisted is the illiberal temptation to introduce yet another layer of regulation that undermines freedom and expands the power of an already overbearing state.

It obviously isn’t popular to say this, but a constructive path forward lies in a holistic social response that places greater responsibility on society itself, holds unscrupulous operators accountable for fraud and cheating without imposing blanket regulation, and tackles the core driver of interactive gambling.

Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.