The study is aimed at conceptualising the political determinants that influence social work education.

The objective is to analyse policy frameworks, interpret ideological bias of curriculum reform and examine governance implications for professional formation.

Recent analyses of South Africa’s political landscape have highlighted a deepening crisis in governance, characterised by widespread corruption, institutional instability, and a notable erosion of public trust in state institutions (Mabunda 2024; Mulaudzi 2024). These challenges are compounded by intense political polarisation, which has fragmented consensus on national priorities and exacerbated coalition-related policymaking difficulties (Dlakavu 2022; Ihembe, Isike & Onwuzuruigbo 2025). Such polarisation not only stalls legislative progress but also fosters an environment where short-term political gains often override evidence-based, long-term developmental strategies. For social work education, this translates into curricula that must increasingly address ethical dilemmas arising from compromised state institutions and prepare practitioners to advocate in highly contested political spaces where accountability mechanisms are weakened.

The formation of the post-2024 coalition government has fundamentally altered South Africa’s political architecture, ending the ANC’s uninterrupted single-party dominance and ushering in an era of multiparty negotiations and fragile compromises. This reconfiguration has introduced significant policy discontinuities, frequent ministerial reshuffles and administrative uncertainty, particularly in portfolios critical to social welfare such as higher education, social development and local government (Ihembe et al. 2025). The resulting fluidity directly undermines the stability required for coherent social work education, as funding priorities shift, regulatory frameworks oscillate and oversight bodies experience leadership turnover. Consequently, there is an urgent imperative for social work programmes to adopt politically responsive curricula and pedagogical innovations – such as scenario-based learning on coalition dynamics and advocacy training for fragmented governance – that equip graduates to navigate and influence unstable institutional environments effectively (Dlakavu 2022).

Compounding these structural shifts are entrenched neoliberal governance trends that prioritise fiscal efficiency, market-oriented reforms and technocratic management over the relational, rights-based and community-embedded approaches that lie at the heart of social work practice (Ornellas & Engelbrecht 2020). These trends manifest in welfare policies that favour outsourcing, performance metrics and conditional grants, often marginalising holistic interventions essential for addressing South Africa’s intersecting inequalities. Simultaneously, the rise of populist politics injects ideological volatility, with rhetoric that can abruptly redirect resources or dismantle progressive frameworks, further disrupting long-term educational planning in social work (Mabunda 2024). Together, these forces demand a deliberate pedagogical reorientation toward critical neoliberal analysis and adaptive, politically astute practice models to ensure that future social workers remain effective agents of transformative change amid ongoing governance turbulence.

Although the professionalisation of social work in South Africa remains rooted in post-apartheid transformation agendas that sought to indigenise and Africanise the profession (Patel 2005), recent scholarship has increasingly emphasised how ongoing political and economic crises continue to reshape its trajectory and institutional foundations. Contemporary analyses highlight the lingering effects of state capture, fiscal austerity, and the 2024 shift to coalition governance, which have perpetuated inequalities in access to training, skewed resource allocation towards urban centres and constrained efforts to fully decolonise curricula and practice models. Empirical studies conducted since 2020 have documented persistent governance failures within South African universities, including financial mismanagement, politically influenced appointments to senior leadership, council paralysis and repeated administrative interventions by the Department of Higher Education and Training (Booysen 2024; Jansen 2023; Mthethwa 2024). These institutional weaknesses disproportionately affect social work programmes, particularly in historically disadvantaged and rural-based institutions, where funding shortfalls and leadership instability directly threaten programme accreditation, lecturer retention and the quality of student support services.

Further research reveals how South Africa’s volatile political environment permeates the practical training component of social work degrees. These studies demonstrate that service-delivery protests, chronic resource shortages in placement agencies, bureaucratic delays in statutory processes and safety concerns in communities routinely disrupt supervised fieldwork, extend programme completion times and compromise learning outcomes (Chigangaidze 2022; Mabvurira 2020). The sudden withdrawal of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and President’s Emergency Plans for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding in early 2025 has dramatically intensified these disruptions by triggering the closure or severe downsizing of numerous non-governmental organisation (NGO) placement sites, particularly in HIV/AIDS care, child protection, and gender-based violence prevention – sectors that previously absorbed a significant proportion of social work students for mandatory practicum hours. Scholars now stress the urgent need for enhanced political literacy, structural competence, and advocacy training to prep students and practitioners to operate effectively within fragmented, resource-constrained, and ideologically contested environments (Hölscher & Bozalek 2020; Rasool 2021).

As such, the body of empirical literature establishes that political determinants are not peripheral but constitutive factors in South African social work education, materially influencing institutional stability, placement ecosystems, curriculum delivery and graduate readiness. Far from being static or merely contextual, political structures and processes actively mediate the conditions under which teaching, learning and professional socialisation occur. These findings reveal the imperative for a systematic conceptual reorientation towards political responsiveness in curriculum design, one that integrates critical analyses of power, funding precarity, coalition dynamics and geopolitical influences to better equip emerging social workers for transformative practice in an era of sustained governance turbulence (Ihembe et al. 2025).

The political economy of education framework scrutinises how economic and political forces shape the structures, governance and outcomes of educational systems (Allais 2012). In South Africa, this lens is indispensable, given the operation of higher education within a resource-scarce environment reliant on public subsidies, policy directives and legislative frameworks. From this viewpoint, social work education is embedded within the national economic fabric, wherein determinations regarding public expenditures, debt management and social welfare financing directly influence resource availability for universities and the professional sphere. For instance, austerity protocols, budgetary reallocations and rival national priorities – such as infrastructural augmentation or defence expenditures – can curtail funding for higher education and social services, thereby constraining staffing, field placement viability and student aid in social work departments.

Internationally, austerity and neoliberal reforms have markedly reconfigured social work education. Papadopoulos (2022) elucidates how funding reforms in Australia have imperilled social work programmes’ sustainability, prompting advocacy to reframe the discipline as allied health for funding security. Analogously, Higgs (2021) delineates how degree-level apprenticeships in England have been eroded by social care budget reductions. Karagkounis (2021) critiques individualised methodologies in Greece amid austerity, advocating contextualised, community-oriented practices. Neoliberal trajectories in higher education have precipitated marketisation, consumerisation, managerialism and deprofessionalisation of social work (Ornellas, Engelbrecht & Atamtürk 2020). Such trajectories favour individualised interventions antithetical to the profession’s ethos of social justice and human rights (Herrero & Charnley 2020). In the neoliberal academy, pedagogical reforms often emulate market rationales, disadvantaging vulnerable cohorts like older adults in disjointed care systems (Carey 2021). Contrarily, the Social Policy Framework for Africa propounds progressive social work anchored in social democratic tenets, human rights and sustainable development (Jongman 2024).

Critical social theory affords an additional conceptual pivot, interrogating the ideological substrates of politics and education. Originating from the Frankfurt School and augmented by postcolonial and decolonial scholarships, this paradigm contests axiomatic presumptions, unveils power asymmetries and champions emancipatory transformation. In social work education, it poses pivotal enquiries: How do political ideologies sculpt curricula? To what extent does education perpetuate or subvert inequalities? How can students and educators function as change agents?

In South Africa, critical social theory resonates with decolonisation mandates. Colonial and apartheid legacies endure in higher education, rendering decolonial reform paramount (Van der Westhuizen, Dykes & Carelse 2022). This entails reappraising pedagogy, theory, research and content to foreground African ontologies (Harms-Smith & Rasool 2020). Strategies encompass dialogues on colonial inheritances, Africanisation pursuits and critical consciousness cultivation (Van der Westhuizen et al. 2022). For example, the University of Johannesburg’s Social Work Department employed critical participatory action research informed by communicative action and reflexivity (Rasool & Harms-Smith 2021). However, wholesale substitution of Western epistemologies with African traditions has engendered ambivalent results, occasionally yielding unanticipated repercussions (Manomano, Nyanhoto & Gutura 2020).

Critical social theory also proffers a normative critique of neoliberal and technicist education, emphasising critical consciousness and transformative pedagogy (Morley, Ablett & Noble 2020). Bussey, Jemal and Caliste (2020) spotlight the transformative potential development model, mediating social control-liberation dialectics in practice. Giroux-inspired critical pedagogies advocate nurturing activist citizens capable of dissecting oppression and advancing radical democracy (Morley & Ablett 2020). Mezirow’s transformative learning theory further accentuates challenging constrictive worldviews and fostering emancipatory praxis (Jones 2020). Thus, critical social theory empowers social work education to resist neoliberal encroachments and propel social justice.

Policy analysis models furnish an applied schema for dissecting political processes’ impacts on social work education and practice. The stages model – encompassing agenda-setting, formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation – is apposite for elucidating legislative effects on curricula (De Corte & Roose 2020). Governmental enactments of social welfare laws necessitate curricular incorporation of novel training imperatives and fieldwork emphases. Policy evaluation may precipitate revisions or expose preparedness lacunae. Institutions can actively contribute, as exemplified by Addis Ababa University’s alignment with national reforms (Baynesagn 2021). Nonetheless, policy education exhibits institutional variance, affecting advocacy preparedness (Pritzker & Giraldo-Santiago 2022).

Kingdon’s multiple streams framework complements this, illuminating convergences of problem, policy and politics streams yielding ‘windows of opportunity’ for reform (Amri & Logan 2021; Borgund 2022; Brown 2019; Onvlee et al. 2021). Such apertures may emerge from crises like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amri & Logan 2021), workforce exigencies (Onvlee et al. 2021) or education reform concerns (Borgund 2022). Policy entrepreneurs reframe issues and broker resolutions, albeit transiently amid shifting priorities (Brown 2019). This implies social work education’s adaptability, capitalising on political junctures to advance responsive curricula while priming graduates for policymaking engagement.

Employing these frameworks, this article conceptualises social work education as a politically embedded and contested endeavour, rather than a neutral or sequestered process. It presupposes those political determinations, manifest in budgetary disbursements, ministerial directives or ideological stances, are constitutive of education, not extrinsic thereto (Sewpaul & Kreitzer 2012).

Accordingly, the analysis on:

Anchored in this tripartite foundation, the article transcends descriptive narratives of political instability towards a nuanced comprehension of mechanisms whereby politics configures – and is configured by – social work education.

The structural, ideological and procedural dimensions do not operate in isolation; instead, they converge to profoundly shape social work education in South Africa. Structurally, political instability and neoliberal fiscal constraints limit material resources and institutional autonomy, creating precarious conditions for programme delivery and field placements. Ideologically, coalition-driven contestations and lingering colonial/apartheid legacies infuse curricula with competing visions of welfare, ranging from market-oriented individualism to rights-based developmentalism, forcing educators to negotiate whose knowledge and values dominate pedagogical space. Procedurally, these forces manifest through oscillating accreditation standards, ministerial directives and funding conditionalities that translate macro-political shifts into micro-level curricular mandates and supervision requirements. This convergence renders social work education a contested terrain where resource scarcity (structural), epistemic injustice (ideological) and regulatory volatility (procedural) reinforce one another, often undermining transformative and decolonial aspirations while simultaneously opening spaces for critical resistance and politically literate practice.

In this article, political literacy is conceptualised primarily as a cross-cutting learning outcome and ethical disposition rather than merely a discrete pedagogical strategy. It encompasses graduates’ capacity to: (1) critically analyse power relations and political-economic structures shaping social problems and welfare systems, (2) recognise and navigate ideological contestations within policy and practice environments and (3) exercise ethical agency in advocacy and policy engagement. While achieved through specific pedagogical strategies (e.g. scenario-based learning on coalition dynamics, reflective supervision in politicised placements, and explicit modules on policy analysis), political literacy ultimately functions as an orienting ethical stance that commits practitioners to ongoing critical consciousness and democratic participation. Clarifying it in this way strengthens both the theoretical precision and the practical pedagogical implications advanced in the article.

This article adopts a conceptual research design, apt for elucidating interrelations between political contexts and social work education sans novel empirical data collection (Jaakkola 2020). Conceptual research entails synthesising, analysing, and integrating extant knowledge to yield fresh theoretical insights. The objective is to interrogate and interconnect established frameworks, literature and policy artefacts to forge a cogent argument regarding the political-educational nexus in South Africa.

This design suits phenomena wherein variables – political architectures, governance modalities and educational practices – interact dynamically and irreducibly to singular datasets (Gilson & Raphaely 2008). By leveraging secondary sources, the article constructs a stratified understanding encompassing structural, ideological and procedural dimensions. Moreover, this article benefited from the use of Grammarly, v1.2.196.1758 (Superhuman Platform Inc., San Francisco California, United States), for grammar refinement and improving readability. The content was reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for its accuracy.

The inquiry is guided by the triadic theoretical frameworks delineated in the ‘Theoretical framework’ section, directing literature selection and interpretation. This ensures an analysis that is:

Owing to the conceptual orientation, ‘data’ comprises secondary materials from diverse repositories, including:

Sources were curated for pertinence, conceptual depth and veracity, incorporating historical and contemporaneous materials to trace political influences’ temporal evolution.

Thematic synthesis constituted the analytical modality, involving:

Although the article is conceptual and not empirical, considerations of reliability and validity remain central to ensuring rigour, credibility and scholarly trustworthiness of the conceptual inquiry. To this end, in conceptual research, reliability and validity are understood not in a positivist measurement term; instead, they are understood in relation to analytical coherence, transparency of knowledge selection and theoretical consistency.

This inquiry eschews exhaustive empirical portrayals of social work education in South Africa, concentrating on political dimensions while acknowledging extraneous factors (e.g. technological shifts, demographic transitions, globalisation) as extraneous. The temporal scope is confined to the post-apartheid era (1994 onward), emphasising transitions culminating in and succeeding the 2024 elections, facilitating scrutiny of enduring patterns and proximate shift.

The conceptual approach is elected for its:

In essence, the methodology proffers a rigorous yet adaptable scaffold for probing political determinants of social work education, yielding theoretically anchored and practically salient insights.

The ANC’s post-1994 ascendancy set the stage for democratic consolidation and systemic transformation. Guided by the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) and later policy frameworks, the state pursued social justice, equity and universal access to public goods. This period of democratic optimism was crucial for higher education, as universities received support to widen access, and professional councils were empowered to regulate standards. For social work in particular, institutions such as the SACSSP became central in ensuring professionalisation and ethical accountability (Gumede 2017). The early decades of democracy were therefore marked by a sense of institutional growth and optimism.

Yet, the long-standing dominance of the ANC introduced challenges that became more visible in subsequent decades. The lack of competitive political alternatives meant that accountability systems eroded, while internal party factionalism spilled over into the governance of public institutions. These dynamics compromised the stability of accreditation bodies, delayed policy reviews, and created inconsistency in university funding allocations. As Southall (2024) observes, political dominance without meaningful accountability mechanisms often leads to institutional stagnation, a reality that has affected sectors such as higher education. The trajectory of post-apartheid political foundations demonstrates how the promise of liberation has coexisted with the pitfalls of single-party dominance.

The 2024 national elections signalled a historic rupture in South Africa’s democratic journey. For the first time since 1994, no single party secured an outright majority, ushering in an era of coalition politics. Scholars such as Ihembe et al. (2025) argue that this development represents both democratic maturity and political uncertainty. Coalition arrangements, while broadening representation, inherently complicate governance as diverse ideological positions must be reconciled through compromise. Commentators have described this moment as the beginning of ‘South Africa’s coalition era’, emphasising the profound implications for governance and policymaking (Forbes Africa 2024). Coalition governments, though reflective of democratic pluralism, risk instability and inconsistent policy direction.

The implications for social work education are significant. Firstly, coalition-driven policy inconsistency may force universities to repeatedly recalibrate curricula to align with shifting ideological agendas. Secondly, budgetary uncertainty arises when coalition negotiations delay or redirect funding commitments, undermining the sustainability of higher education. Thirdly, shared or fragmented ministerial portfolios complicate the regulation of professional bodies, creating challenges for accreditation and compliance. Coalition politics deepen democratic pluralism while also threatening institutional coherence. For social work education, these dynamics create a climate of uncertainty that requires adaptability and resilience in professional planning.

Despite advances in democratic governance, South Africa continues to grapple with governance challenges that undermine institutional capacity. Corruption and maladministration have become entrenched features of public life, eroding trust in the state and weakening service delivery (Mabunda 2024). These governance failures are particularly evident in higher education, where financial mismanagement, leadership crises and politicised appointments destabilise universities. A conceptual study of governance in South African universities found that repeated administrative interventions are symptomatic of systemic dysfunction (Mthethwa 2024). This dysfunction undermines universities’ ability to maintain academic excellence and deliver professional training in fields such as social work.

The consequences for students and future professionals are profound. In provinces like the Eastern Cape, governance breakdowns at both local government and university levels have led to inadequate infrastructure, funding shortfalls and recurring student protests. These disruptions frequently extend to social work field placements, where students must train in under-resourced offices or poorly managed community agencies. Dlamini (2023) has noted that the consequences of corrupt decision-making reverberate across generations, diminishing the quality of education and social services. While these conditions test students’ resilience and adaptability, they also compromise the quality of professional preparation, posing risks to both the credibility of social work education and the communities it serves.

The ideological orientation of South African politics has significant implications for higher education and social work. Neoliberal frameworks, which prioritise efficiency, competition and performance metrics, often limit the scope of justice-oriented curricula, shifting the focus towards compliance and quantifiable outcomes (Ornellas & Engelbrecht 2020). This orientation, though efficient in some respects, risks undermining the transformative ethos of social work by reducing it to technical procedures. In contrast, social democratic shifts in policy expand resources for welfare-linked education, fostering conditions more aligned with the values of equity, justice and care that underpin the social work profession.

Populism, however, introduces volatility into the policy environment. Policies driven by electoral expediency frequently disrupt long-term educational planning, creating uncertainty in budget allocations and regulatory consistency. The everyday news outlets usually portray how populist rhetoric from parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Freedom Front Plus (FF+) has exacerbated polarisation and disrupted institutional legitimacy. For social work, which operates within and alongside state institutions, these ideological shifts necessitate flexibility and responsiveness. Professional bodies and universities must balance the demands of accountability and standardisation with a commitment to advocacy and justice, all within a fluid and often unpredictable political landscape.

The intensification of political polarisation in South Africa has wide-ranging consequences for higher education and professional fields such as social work. While some scholars argue that South Africa is not among the most politically polarised societies globally (Southall 2024), the effects of partisan conflict on university campuses are undeniable. Student Representative Councils (SRCs), often aligned with political parties, become extensions of broader ideological battles, sometimes prioritising partisan interests over academic goals (University of Zululand Study 2019). As Jansen (2023) warns, the politicisation of governance in universities threatens institutional integrity and compromises learning environments.

For social work students, this polarisation creates both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, exposure to debates and activism fosters critical consciousness, political awareness and engagement with pressing social issues – skills crucial for transformative social work practice. On the other hand, polarisation generates instability, disrupts learning and undermines the cohesion of academic programmes. These dynamics highlight the importance of equipping students with reflective and critical tools to navigate highly politicised spaces. For a profession deeply rooted in social justice, political polarisation underscores the need to cultivate practitioners who can balance advocacy with professionalism, ensuring that partisan alignments do not compromise their ethical responsibilities.

The design and responsiveness of social work curricula are closely shaped by political priorities and legislative frameworks. For instance, shifts in coalition governments may result in new policy directions that emphasise particular aspects of social welfare at the expense of others, compelling universities to continually reorient modules (Pritzker & Lane 2014). When austerity measures are introduced, advocacy and community development components may be reduced, thereby weakening students’ preparedness to challenge structural inequalities. Conversely, when welfare expansions are prioritised, curricula can accommodate new and innovative content areas such as digital social work and rights-based advocacy (Allais 2012).

Critical theory perspectives argue that social work education must do more than react to political agendas – it must proactively equip students with political literacy skills to interrogate and resist systemic injustices (Fook 2016). This is particularly urgent in South Africa, where social workers operate in contexts of inequality, corruption and contested state legitimacy. By embedding political analysis within the curriculum, educators can prepare students to navigate both state structures and grassroots movements, positioning them as transformative practitioners rather than passive implementers of shifting policies.

Professional accreditation in South Africa, overseen by the SACSSP, is not immune to political dynamics. Accreditation requirements are susceptible to policy amendments, reflecting ideological contestations within coalition governments (Lombard 2008). For example, alterations in the criteria for continuous professional development may impact the content of university programmes, creating uncertainty for both educators and students. Such fluctuations can undermine long-term planning and hinder the cultivation of professional standards.

At the same time, accreditation processes can serve as a safeguard against political interference if regulatory bodies assert their independence. International literature suggests that strong professional associations buffer the profession from political volatility and protect core values such as social justice and human rights (Hugman 2010). Strengthening the SACSSP’s autonomy and accountability mechanisms could thus help sustain educational quality, even in times of political turbulence.

Field placements constitute a cornerstone of social work education, yet they are highly vulnerable to political disruptions. According to Mabvurira (2020), students placed in public service institutions often encounter instability because of shifting political priorities, budgetary reallocation or even service delivery protests. Such disruptions not only affect student learning but also compromise the quality of services available to vulnerable communities.

To mitigate these risks, social work education must embed political preparation within fieldwork orientation. Students should be trained to critically reflect on how macro-political processes shape service environments, including the impact of corruption, administrative inefficiencies and community resistance. Research from Ghana and Kenya shows that politically conscious placements enhance students’ adaptive skills, equipping them to handle uncertainty while still adhering to professional ethics (Mupedziswa 2020). South African institutions could adopt similar approaches by formalising modules on political risk in field education.

The availability of public funding for higher education and social work programmes is deeply entwined with ideological commitments. Allais (2012) explains that neoliberal fiscal policies often lead to cuts in social sector funding, undermining the sustainability of social work education. In South Africa, recurring budget constraints affect faculty staffing, research support and student bursaries, disproportionately disadvantaging historically under-resourced institutions.

Nevertheless, funding constraints can stimulate creativity in resource mobilisation. Partnerships with NGOs, private foundations and international development agencies have allowed some universities to sustain innovative programmes despite limited state support (Engelbrecht 2019). Embedding sustainability strategies – such as blended learning models and community-based research – into curriculum design may further strengthen resilience against shifting political-economic priorities.

Political instability in South Africa paradoxically produces graduates who are more resilient and politically astute. Rasool (2020) notes that exposure to volatile governance conditions fosters advocacy skills, conflict resolution abilities and adaptability. Graduates who train in such contexts are better equipped to operate in diverse, often unpredictable, welfare systems both locally and globally.

However, resilience cannot be assumed as an automatic outcome; it must be intentionally nurtured. Integrating reflective practice, mentorship and experiential learning into curricula ensures that students’ experiences of instability translate into professional growth rather than burnout. International studies on graduate employability emphasise the importance of political literacy and emotional intelligence in preparing social workers for complex environments (Dominelli 2020).

Policy shifts significantly shape the research agendas of social work academics. Boonzaier and Van Niekerk (2019) highlight that politically sensitive topics such as gender-based violence, inequality and migration often gain or lose prominence depending on the ruling coalition’s priorities. This can both enable timely applied research and constrain critical inquiry where political interests discourage scrutiny.

For this reason, academic independence is vital. Social work research should maintain a critical distance from state agendas, producing knowledge that interrogates power relations rather than merely legitimising policy (Gray & Lombard 2014). Building transnational research networks can also counterbalance political pressures by situating South African scholarship within broader global debates.

Political volatility can stimulate curriculum innovation by forcing educators to integrate new analytical tools and civic engagement strategies. Harms-Smith and Rasool (2020) argue that transformative education in social work must go beyond technical training to include critical dialogue, participatory pedagogy and active engagement with communities. In contexts of instability, such approaches prepare students to function as agents of social change rather than bureaucratic functionaries.

Innovations such as decolonial pedagogy and intersectional analysis are particularly relevant in South Africa, where curricula must address the legacies of apartheid, systemic inequality and cultural diversity. Embedding these frameworks within teaching not only enhances students’ critical thinking but also aligns with international calls for indigenised, contextually relevant social work education (Sewpaul 2014).