The resignation of UK prime minister Keir Starmer brings to light some of the paradoxes of democracy. It produces legitimacy based on the free votes of its citizens, yet legitimacy does not always mean that a government acts in the country’s best interests.
Starmer’s huge majority in the House of Commons, comparable only to the landslides achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and before that in the elections of 1924 and 1931, turned out to have crippled him. He had so many people to please that he ended up pleasing nobody. On almost every issue, he took a view and then changed his mind.
Perhaps his greatest failure is in defence policy. This was not so much a personal failure as a reflection of what has been happening in Britain for a quarter of a century, under Labour and Conservative governments. Spending on social benefits has risen, defence spending has declined.
Other European governments are increasing military budgets markedly, as the threat of Russian aggression looms large in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wild disruption of alliances and apparent rejection of the traditional US role as ultimate guardian of Europe’s security.
Yet Britain has resisted increasing its defence budget. Its politicians of all parties sense that the electorate will not tolerate boosting the military by cutting social benefits elsewhere. The only other possible sources of revenue — and in neither case is there much room for manoeuvre — are taxation and borrowing.
Starmer’s probable successor, Andy Burnham, seems likely to increase both — but with little indication that he will use the proceeds to boost defence spending. The Royal Navy will continue to be impotent to police even the English Channel, where Russian vessels have been sailing with impunity.
The Royal Navy will continue to be impotent to police even the English Channel
Britain’s debt-to-GDP ratio is already higher than 100%. The best way to reduce it would be through strong economic growth, but tax increases would constrain that. The standard corporate income tax rate is 25%, with a 45% top rate for individuals — but VAT, a tax on consumption, is at 20%.
South Africa is in a similar predicament. Our tax rates are similar to the UK’s, though we rely more heavily on a relatively small number of high-income taxpayers. Our debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from below 30% before the 2008 financial crisis to about 80% due to weak economic growth, budget deficits and rising interest costs.
South Africa’s spending on defence, expressed as a percentage of GDP, has declined steadily. It was at its peak in 1977 (5.3%) and remained high for the decade of conflict in Namibia and Angola (4.5% in 1989). After 2002, when it was 1.53%, it declined consistently to 0.7% in 2025. This is lower than at any time since World War 2.
Like the UK, South Africa is a maritime country but has neglected over the years to ensure that its interests are secured. It is true that the South African government’s policy for 30 years has been to arrest the decline of its army, navy and air force and rebuild them into a modern force that can deliver on its constitutional mandate.
That policy has been exposed as a fantasy. As in Britain, our politicians have clearly decided that the voters are not interested in the defence of their country — and they are listening to them.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.