by Ayanda Zulu
Do most people believe that Coca-Cola, a beverage company that sells sugary soft drinks, is responsible for the high consumption of sugar in South Africa through its “relentless advertising” that exploits people’s cravings and desires? Following this logic, would they accept regulations that impose restrictions on beverage companies such as limiting ads, controlling how much people can consume, or even restricting consumption to just one can of soft drink per week?
That seems unlikely. Most people probably understand how unreasonable it is to assign responsibility to a company for personal choices around consumption, and they would rather encourage others – who have agency – to lead healthier lifestyles and reduce their intake of sugar.
Given this reality it is rather perplexing to see many of them applying a different and inconsistent logic to the issue of gambling by implicitly suggesting that the gambling industry is responsible for personal choices. Here, it must be clarified that the former claim is not about the conflation of two unrelated issues. It also isn’t about the equation of two distinct products, nor the implication that their addictive dynamics are identical.
What is being argued here is that the current anti-gambling crusade rests on the erroneous and inconsistent assumption that the gambling industry itself is to blame for the prevalence of gambling, and that it must be reined in through tighter regulation because it is “largely unregulated.”
According to entrepreneur Koshiek Karan and others the paternalistic state must intervene through a new web of regulations to micromanage personal behaviour because people possess no agency and capacity for rational thought. They’re no different to children lacking self-control, and they must, therefore, be protected from themselves and from the possibility of financial harm. Isn’t this unreasonable?
Much like smoking and drinking, gambling is arguably a vice, and there is little doubt that many South Africans are overindulging. The data are clear: many are sinking further into debt, others are losing what little they have, and even students are gambling away their allowances.
However, what must not be overlooked is that gambling constitutes voluntary adult behaviour among adults of legal age. It involves people who make the conscious and personal choice to gamble with a full appreciation of the associated dangers and the reality that victory is not guaranteed. Therefore, as insensitive as it may sound, they must accept the consequences of their choices.
While advertising does heighten temptation and particularly trigger the impulses of those who are socio-economically vulnerable and regard gambling as a quick path to income, it doesn’t erase their agency. Gamification and other marketing tactics have the same effect, and yet they still don’t change the basic fact that people ultimately choose to act on their impulses. No external force compels them to spend their last rand on a gambling voucher.
Beyond advertising, even the concerns around easy access or unlimited gaming attempts still don’t justify regulatory outreach because they don’t negate agency entirely. Access can lure people, but they still have the power to decide. Online platforms can incentivise them to keep playing, but they ultimately have the power to put their devices down.
Making this kind of argument is not about downplaying the social issues associated with gambling or suggesting that they don’t exist. It is about contending that these issues, which stem from personal choices, are ultimately society’s responsibility to tackle and not an ever-expanding state in South Africa.
The key danger with regulatory expansion, as has already been suggested, is that it is a slippery slope that can set a bad precedent and inevitably expand the state’s power into the private sphere of society. Today it can start with gambling, which many people clearly detest. Tomorrow it can move to sugar consumption under the guise of public health, or even personal financial decisions under the guise of public protection. Once that descent begins, it becomes nearly impossible to stop.
South Africa already appears to be heading down this path with proposed legislation such as the Tobacco Bill and the EFF’s Liquor Amendment Bill, both of which grant the state undue power over people’s lives and infringe on certain constitutional liberties.
Social activist Pieter Kriel correctly notes that an urgent dialogue on gambling is necessary, but the anti-capitalist undertone underpinning his call is misguided. What this dialogue should focus on is personal responsibility and how individuals must be held accountable for their own choices.
What it should also emphasise is societal responsibility and how society, rather than the state, must come together to address an issue that is causing significant financial harm and distress in the country.
Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.
