In what do countries put the conditions of their creditors above the needs of their people? Give examples.

News & reporting

The Mail & Guardian reports that South Africa's 2026 budget stabilises public debt, but debt service still absorbs more than one in every R5 of main budget revenue, which it says limits room for social and capital spending.

Justice Council Political Analysis

The record shows three mechanisms: debt service taking over a fifth of public revenue (South Africa), creditor-set programme terms taken by borrowers (Egypt and Pakistan, 2024), and, in the extreme, creditors taking direct control of state revenues (the Ottoman Empire, 1881). That the terms themselves, rather than the debt, caused hardship is the view of Expert Opinions, not something the record settles.

The record needs each programme's conditions set beside the social-spending lines they touch before the effect of the terms can be separated from the effect of the debt itself.

Conclusion

The sources give these examples, each established to a different degree:\n- Egypt and Pakistan agreed IMF programmes in 2024 while carrying heavy debt.\n- The Ottoman Empire handed key revenues to a creditor-run administration in 1881.\n- South Africa spends over a fifth of main budget revenue on debt service, which the Mail & Guardian says limits room for social and capital spending.\n- Tunisia is the counter-case: its president rejected IMF terms in 2023, the IMF deal stalled, and the state turned to its central bank to repay external debt.\nWhether these terms outrank people's needs is the view of Expert Opinions, not something the record settles.