As South Africa marks the historic 50th anniversary of the 1976 youth uprisings, the country again faces a defining moment in confronting one of the enduring legacies of apartheid: the destructive relationship between alcohol, inequality and social harm.
This time, however, the battleground is not the streets of Soweto. It is the National Treasury alcohol tax review process.
The review currently under way may sound technical and distant from ordinary South Africans, but its implications for public health, community safety, youth well-being and economic productivity are profound.
Crucially, this is a rare policy window, one that emerges only once in about a decade. South Africans cannot afford to sit out this one.
The National Treasury has opened the door for public participation through its discussion paper on alcohol taxation with a technical workshop.
Fifty years ago, young people resisted apartheid systems that used alcohol as a tool of social control and economic extraction. Beer halls were not innocent recreational spaces. They functioned as instruments of apartheid governance, deliberately used to pacify black communities while generating municipal revenue.
The youth uprisings challenged these oppressive structures, including the social destruction associated with beer halls in townships.
Today, South Africa confronts a different but related reality. Alcohol remains deeply embedded in patterns of violence, road deaths, gender-based violence, mental health crises, family breakdown and pressure on hospitals and emergency services. Communities continue to carry the burden of cheap and easily accessible alcohol.
The National Treasury acknowledges these concerns in its discussion paper. Among the proposals under consideration are differentiated excise tax bands based on alcohol strength, the possibility of taxing alcohol according to alcohol content, and discussions around minimum unit pricing.
These proposals deserve strong public support.
Globally, alcohol taxation is recognised as one of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) “Best Buys” for reducing alcohol-related harm.
The WHO’s Safer initiative specifically identifies raising prices through excise taxes as one of the most effective interventions available to governments. Evidence from countries implementing stronger alcohol pricing policies consistently shows reductions in harmful drinking, violence, road injuries and pressure on healthcare systems.
Importantly, the Treasury’s proposal to introduce differentiated beer tax bands based on alcohol strength is a major step forward. It signals a shift away from treating all alcoholic beverages equally, regardless of their alcohol concentration and associated harm.
By incentivising lower-alcohol products, the Treasury is beginning to align fiscal policy with public health outcomes.
But the proposals could go further.
The approach advanced by the Research Unit on the Economics of Excisable Products (Reep) offers a more ambitious and evidence-driven framework. Reep has consistently argued for alcohol taxation systems that more directly target harmful consumption patterns, strengthen health outcomes and better reflect the true social cost of alcohol harm.
Beer remains the most consumed alcohol product in the country and is central to harmful drinking patterns identified by the Treasury
In particular, the Treasury should seriously consider tightening the proposed beer bands. The current proposal groups beverages between 2.5% and 9% alcohol content into a single category. This is too broad.
A narrower upper threshold, closer to 6%, would create stronger incentives for manufacturers to reformulate products towards lower alcohol content, while discouraging high-strength beer consumption patterns that contribute significantly to binge drinking.
This matters because beer remains the most consumed alcohol product in the country and is central to harmful drinking patterns identified by the Treasury.
Critics will undoubtedly argue that higher taxes will fuel illicit trade or threaten jobs. These arguments are familiar. They accompany nearly every attempt globally to regulate harmful industries.
Yet evidence increasingly shows effective enforcement measures against illicit trade can coexist with strong public health taxation policies. South Africa does not need to choose between protecting public health and tackling illicit trade; it must do both simultaneously.
Nor should South Africans be persuaded that alcohol taxation is simply about state revenue collection. This process is fundamentally about reducing the true cost of alcohol harm borne daily by women, children, healthcare workers, schools, police officers and communities.
There is also something deeply symbolic about this conversation taking place during Youth Month.
The generation of 1976 confronted systems designed to exploit and suppress them. In 2026, perhaps one of the ways we honour that legacy is by confronting another system that continues to exact an enormous social cost on young people and vulnerable communities through excessive alcohol consumption.
The struggle today may not involve physically bringing down beer halls. It may involve supporting proven fiscal policies that reduce harmful drinking, incentivise safer products and place public health above commercial interests.
Policy reform rarely captures the national imagination. But this one should, because South Africa may not get another opportunity like this for another decade.
- Dlamini is campaign director at the Southern African Alcohol Policy Alliance.
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.