Abstract: The debate over defence spending is often framed as a choice between security and development. This article argues that the real challenge is not choosing between “guns” and “butter”, but ensuring that resource allocation is guided by clearly defined national interests, strategic objectives and long-term priorities. Strategy should inform budgets, not the other way around.
Dr Joan Swart
Keywords: Defence Policy | Strategy | SANDF | Defence Planning | National Interests | Defence Economics | Strategic Alignment
BEYOND GUNS AND BUTTER: WHY STRATEGY MUST COME BEFORE BUDGETS
The perennial “guns versus butter” debate has once again surfaced in discussions about South Africa’s defence budget. The argument is familiar: in a country facing poverty, unemployment, infrastructure challenges and pressing social needs, should scarce resources be directed towards defence or development?
At first glance, the answer appears obvious. South Africa’s most immediate challenges are social and economic, and many would argue that defence spending should therefore take a back seat to more pressing priorities. Yet framing the discussion as a choice between guns and butter risks oversimplifying a far more complex question. The real challenge facing South Africa is not deciding whether defence or development matters more. It is determining what kind of country South Africa seeks to be, what national interests it seeks to protect, what risks it is prepared to accept, and how limited resources should be allocated to achieve those objectives over the long term.
Before debating budgets, we should first discuss strategy.
One of the weaknesses of many policy debates is that they begin with money rather than purpose. Questions about how much should be spent on defence, social grants, infrastructure or healthcare are undoubtedly important, but they are secondary questions. The primary questions should be: What are South Africa’s national interests? What are its long-term objectives? What risks is it willing to accept? What capabilities are required to achieve those objectives? Only once these questions have been answered can meaningful discussions about resource allocation begin.
The purpose of a defence force is not to consume resources. It is to provide capabilities in support of national objectives. Similarly, the purpose of economic and social spending is not expenditure itself, but the achievement of societal outcomes. In both cases, the question should not be how much money is spent, but what capability or outcome is being produced. This distinction is important because discussions about defence spending often occur in isolation from broader strategic considerations, reducing what should be a debate about national priorities to an annual argument about affordability.
Calls for increased defence spending are frequently met with understandable scepticism. Many South Africans would reasonably ask what additional funding would achieve, how it would be spent, and what reforms are being implemented to address concerns regarding inefficiency, irregular expenditure and declining institutional performance. These are legitimate questions. If entrusted with the national purse strings, I would ask them myself. Before allocating additional resources, government should be able to articulate what capabilities are required, why they are required, how they support national interests, and how success will be measured. Defence should not be exempt from the same standards of accountability and performance expected of any other public institution.
The converse, however, is equally true. Before reducing defence spending, policymakers should be able to explain which capabilities can safely be sacrificed, what risks will increase as a result, and how those risks will be managed. Yet this is rarely how the discussion is framed. Defence budgets are often treated as a discretionary expense that can be adjusted according to immediate fiscal pressures, with insufficient consideration given to the capabilities being lost or the long-term consequences of their erosion.
This points to a broader challenge. South Africa’s policy environment is increasingly characterised by short-term crisis management. The latest fiscal pressure, governance challenge, service delivery failure or political controversy often dominates decision-making. Defence is certainly not unique in this regard. Similar patterns can be observed in debates about policing, infrastructure, energy, healthcare and education. Long-term planning struggles to compete with immediate demands, and institutions become increasingly reactive rather than strategic.
The consequence is that strategy often becomes a function of budget rather than budget becoming a function of strategy. A state should ideally begin by identifying its national interests and security objectives. Those objectives should inform a national security strategy, which in turn should guide defence strategy, force design, capability requirements and resource allocation.
When this hierarchy is reversed, strategic drift becomes almost inevitable.
Institutions are left to adapt to resource constraints without a clear understanding of what outcomes they are ultimately expected to achieve. South Africa’s Defence Review 2015 attempted to provide precisely such a framework by linking national interests and defence objectives to force design, capability requirements and resource needs. Whether one agrees with all its conclusions is less important than recognising the value of the exercise itself. The Review sought to think beyond annual budgets and electoral cycles by asking what defence capabilities South Africa would require to protect its interests and fulfil its responsibilities over the long term. More than a decade later, many of the challenges identified in that document remain unresolved, suggesting that the issue may not simply be one of resources, but also one of strategic continuity and implementation.
Yet the traditional guns-versus-butter model assumes that security and prosperity are competing objectives. In reality, they are often mutually dependent. A country that spends excessively on defence at the expense of development will ultimately undermine its own prosperity. Equally, a country that neglects the foundations of its security may eventually find that the conditions necessary for sustainable prosperity begin to erode.
Security is not the opposite of development. It is one of the conditions that makes development possible.
This relationship is perhaps more complex than many discussions acknowledge. South Africa’s defence-industrial sector contributes to high-skilled employment, advanced manufacturing, engineering expertise, exports, research and development, and technological innovation. These capabilities have value beyond the military sphere and form part of the country’s broader industrial and economic ecosystem. Their decline therefore has implications not only for defence, but also for economic competitiveness, technological capacity and human capital development.
Recognising this does not mean that every defence programme is economically justified or that every request for additional funding should be approved. Nor does it imply that defence should be prioritised above all other national needs. Rather, it highlights the importance of understanding defence within a broader strategic context. The question is not whether resources should be allocated to security or development, but how both can be balanced in pursuit of clearly defined national interests and long-term objectives.
Ultimately, the challenge facing South Africa is not choosing between guns and butter. Every nation must make difficult trade-offs. The more important challenge is ensuring that those trade-offs are guided by a coherent long-term strategy grounded in clearly defined national interests, agreed objectives and enduring principles rather than the shifting priorities of the day. Without such a framework, budget debates risk becoming annual exercises in crisis management rather than deliberate investments in the country’s future security and prosperity.
If South Africa cannot clearly articulate what its defence establishment is expected to achieve, then neither calls for increased spending nor demands for further cuts can be evaluated meaningfully.
Strategy should inform budgets, not the other way around.
The real question facing South Africa is therefore not whether it should choose guns or butter, but whether it possesses a sufficiently clear long-term strategy to determine what balance of security, prosperity and national capability is required to secure its future.
* Originally published by Defenceweb
NONGQAI’S Strategic Security Analyst Dr Joan Swart is a forensic psychologist with an MBA and an MA in Military Studies. Her work focuses on African security, geopolitics, state fragility, substate dynamics, and the intersection between governance, legitimacy, and coercive power. She is the author of several books and regularly publishes long-form analysis and opinion pieces on security and governance issues. Her writing has appeared in outlets including DefenceWeb, Maroela Media, Netwerk24, RSG, Visegrad, and other policy and public-affairs platforms. She has a weekly slot on SAfm The Global Briefing to analyse world affairs. Her work bridges academic research, policy analysis, and applied strategic assessment, and she is currently completing a second PhD at the University of Stellenbosch Military Academy. Follow her on X/Twitter, Substack, and LinkedIn.
