Coalition politics: Should South Africans elect their mayors directly?
As hung municipalities become South Africa's new reality, experts warn that political horse-trading, weak accountability and unstable coalitions could undermine service delivery.
Kabous Le Roux
South Africa's coalition politics debate: Should voters elect their municipal mayors directly as hung councils reshape local government? (Picture credit: alexan107/123rf)
alexan107/123rf
South Africa's political landscape is entering an increasingly complicated era as hung municipalities become more common, forcing political parties to negotiate coalition agreements that could determine how millions of residents experience local government.
But as parties prepare to negotiate their way into power, questions are mounting over whether these arrangements will prioritise service delivery and accountability or descend into another round of political horse-trading.
With coalition negotiations expected to unfold across the country following the local government elections, experts have warned that political parties need to learn from previous failures and move beyond distributing positions if they hope to build stable administrations.
Dr Thina Nzo, a senior researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), and Jonathan Moakes, Director at SABI Strategy Group, discussed the challenges facing South Africa's emerging coalition governments during an interview with 702’s Clement Manyathela.
Their assessment was that coalition politics requires a different approach to governance, with greater transparency, clearer agreements and a stronger focus on what municipalities actually need.
Related articles:
— South Africa unlikely to see one-party rule again, says Roelf Meyer
— South Africa could face more than 100 hung councils: What happens next?
— MANDY WIENER | Coalition govt negotiations: Lessons from 'The Deal'
Coalition negotiations risk becoming a battle for positions
A hung municipality occurs when no political party secures an outright majority in council. Parties must then negotiate with one another to secure the numbers needed to elect political leadership and govern.
The scale of the challenge was already becoming apparent as election results trickled in.
Moakes said that, at the time of the interview, 72 of the 90 councils officially declared by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) were hung.
Under the Municipal Structures Act, parties have 14 days from the declaration of results to establish the first council meeting, where votes for positions such as mayor and speaker take place.
If parties fail to reach an agreement, municipal managers and, in some cases, provincial MECs responsible for local government may have to intervene to keep council meetings going until a government can be elected.
Moakes said negotiations were likely to be complicated, with different political configurations emerging across municipalities.
He explained that discussions typically begin informally before parties convene their respective leadership structures to establish negotiating mandates and appoint teams.
Formal bilateral negotiations then follow, with parties approaching one another individually rather than necessarily sitting around one table.
However, he warned that the process has too often been dominated by political horse-trading.
"Most political parties to date undertake coalition negotiations on the basis of what positions party is going to get, who's going to be the mayor, who's going to be the deputy mayor, who's going to be the speaker," he said.
Moakes argued that negotiations should instead begin with the needs of municipalities, particularly service delivery, infrastructure shortages and governance priorities.
"What we need to see going forward, and I think what South Africans clearly are wanting, is proper agreements that are focused on what these coalition governments are going to do rather than who occupies what position."
Transparency and accountability remain major weaknesses
Nzo said previous coalition arrangements had often been characterised by secrecy and negotiations that prioritised political positions over governance.
She said the public had little insight into what coalition agreements contained, making it difficult to determine whether political parties had agreed on measurable objectives or performance expectations.
The distribution of positions in mayoral committees, service delivery departments and portfolio committees had also become a significant part of coalition negotiations.
Nzo questioned whether political parties entering executive positions were being held to agreed performance standards.
She argued that coalition agreements should include clear expectations for those appointed to leadership positions, including mayors, and that parties should be able to explain decisions to remove political office-bearers.
Without such arrangements, votes of no confidence could become another source of instability rather than a mechanism for addressing poor performance.
Nzo said the proposed Municipal Structures Amendment Bill could potentially force greater transparency around coalition agreements by requiring political parties to make their arrangements public.
But the question of accountability extends beyond the agreements themselves.
In coalition governments, executive responsibilities are often divided between several political parties, making it difficult for residents to establish who should answer for failures.
Nzo said citizens could hold their ward councillors directly accountable, but the picture became more complicated when problems involved different members of a coalition executive.
A mayor might represent the municipality publicly, for example, while an infrastructure portfolio controlled by another party was responsible for a particular service delivery problem.
This creates opportunities for political parties to shift blame when things go wrong.
She pointed to allegations emerging from the Madlanga Commission concerning events in the City of Tshwane as an example of how political parties could distance themselves from allegations involving coalition partners.
The result, she argued, was that residents could struggle to identify who was ultimately responsible.
Should voters elect their mayors directly?
One of Nzo's more significant proposals was that South Africa should consider allowing residents to elect municipal mayors directly.
She argued that the current system, in which political parties effectively determine who becomes mayor through council negotiations, can leave voters with little influence over who ultimately leads their municipality.
This becomes particularly problematic when a mayoral position is used as a bargaining chip in coalition negotiations.
Nzo suggested introducing a third ballot paper for a directly elected mayor, giving residents a more direct say in who represents their city.
Under such a system, communities could elect a mayor based on a candidate's proposed programme of action and hold that individual accountable for delivering on those commitments.
She also suggested that a referendum could potentially provide a mechanism for removing a mayor who failed to meet agreed expectations.
Moakes described the proposal as interesting, although he acknowledged that some voters might question the need for another ballot paper.
He noted that direct mayoral elections in other systems can require candidates to secure more than 50% of the vote, sometimes necessitating a second round between the leading candidates.
He also argued that South African voters were already demonstrating their ability to hold coalition partners accountable at the ballot box.
The performance of parties in Johannesburg, including the ANC, EFF, Al Jama-ah and Patriotic Alliance, illustrated that voters could punish parties they believed had failed to deliver.
With the 2029 general elections approaching, Moakes said political parties would have to demonstrate tangible progress in the municipalities they governed.
The 1% threshold and the threat to smaller parties
The proposed Municipal Structures Amendment Bill of 2026 is another important consideration as political parties prepare to negotiate coalition agreements.
Nzo said one of the most contentious proposals was the introduction of a 1% electoral threshold, which would prevent political parties that failed to secure at least that share of the vote from obtaining a council seat.
She warned that the proposal could undermine democratic representation by excluding parties that had received support from hundreds of voters.
"What happens to those hundreds of people who did vote for this political party? And then are you not subduing and also suppressing their democratic voices?" she asked.
Nzo said the proposal had already attracted opposition from political parties that viewed it as a threat to democracy.
The latest election results could intensify that debate, particularly given the losses experienced by smaller parties such as the Patriotic Alliance and Al Jama-ah.
For now, the coalition negotiations following the elections would take place under the existing framework, without the proposed amendments providing a new set of rules.
Moakes also highlighted a proposal in the bill to extend the period available for forming coalitions from 14 to 30 days.
He said the additional time could allow parties to negotiate more carefully and develop an actual programme of action for coalition governments.
Kingmakers carry significant responsibility
Smaller parties that hold the balance of power in hung councils face considerable pressure during coalition negotiations.
Often referred to as kingmakers, these parties can determine which larger political party secures enough support to govern.
Moakes identified ActionSA as a particularly important player in Gauteng, while the Patriotic Alliance was likely to be closely watched in several Western Cape municipalities.
He said parties such as ActionSA were likely to have been approached by both the ANC and DA to establish informal lines of communication.
But the influence of kingmakers also comes with responsibility.
Nzo said political parties had begun learning from previous coalition arrangements in which smaller parties used their negotiating power to demand mayoral positions.
She questioned whether the quality and suitability of some candidates appointed through these arrangements had been sufficient.
Political parties, she argued, needed to consider proportionality rather than simply handing executive leadership positions to smaller parties because their votes were needed to secure a majority.
Moakes also raised the possibility that national and provincial coalition arrangements could become bargaining chips in local negotiations.
With the country already governed through a national coalition, and coalition arrangements also in place in provinces including Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, parties could potentially use positions in these structures to secure support in municipalities.
Voters need a say beyond election day
The experts also questioned whether political parties were doing enough to involve their supporters in decisions about coalition partners.
Nzo pointed to ActionSA's use of a poll to gauge the preferences of its constituencies regarding potential coalition partners in different regions.
She described this as a positive example of democratic participation extending beyond the ballot box.
She suggested that ward councillors could also use existing community structures and platforms such as WhatsApp to establish what residents wanted from coalition negotiations.
Ward meetings could provide an opportunity for residents to express their preferences, with the feedback passed on to regional and provincial party structures.
However, the discussion also highlighted the limitations facing ward councillors themselves.
Responding to a listener who questioned whether ward councillors were still serving a meaningful purpose, Nzo acknowledged that their roles had, in many instances, been reduced to election campaigning and communicating service delivery complaints.
She said ward councillors often had limited powers and resources to address residents' concerns directly.
Their ability to respond depended heavily on municipal budgets, revenue collection and the availability of resources.
While councillors could identify problems and advocate for their communities, they did not necessarily have control over the resources needed to resolve them.
Nzo nevertheless argued that ward councillors remained essential to representative democracy, adding that communities could also elect independent candidates rather than representatives from political parties.
Coalition partners must explain their decisions to voters
The challenge facing political parties does not end once coalition agreements have been signed.
Moakes said parties needed to do more to explain not only why they had entered into particular arrangements but also what they intended to achieve through them.
He pointed to the Government of National Unity (GNU) as an example of the communication challenges involved in coalition politics.
The DA, for instance, had to explain to supporters why it was entering a national coalition with the ANC.
But Moakes argued that communicating the reasoning behind a coalition was only part of the challenge.
"It's one thing to form a government, it's a second thing to take voters with you," he said.
Political parties needed to communicate what they were doing in the portfolios they controlled and explain why they were unable to achieve certain objectives.
This would become particularly important for junior coalition partners, which could find themselves associated with the failures of larger parties despite having limited influence over government decisions.
Moakes warned that political parties could not simply distance themselves from service delivery failures when they were part of the governing coalition.
He also cautioned against allowing national political relationships to dictate local coalition arrangements.
Ideally, he said, coalitions should be negotiated at municipal level, taking into account the specific needs of individual communities.
However, South Africa's proportional representation system and the influence of national party structures meant that local negotiations would inevitably be shaped by broader political strategies.
A difficult year ahead for coalition governments
Both experts predicted a complicated period as political parties attempt to establish governing arrangements across the country.
Nzo said parties needed to demonstrate political maturity, learn from previous coalition failures and recognise that the traditional winner-takes-all approach was unlikely to work in the current political environment.
She said negotiations needed to be based on compromise, service delivery and an understanding that voters were increasingly willing to punish parties that failed to deliver.
Moakes also expected a messy process, arguing that parties needed time to negotiate privately but would ultimately have to communicate their decisions and intentions to the public.
He said voters had made their expectations clear through the election results, and political parties would need to respond accordingly.
The challenge now is whether South Africa's political parties can translate those electoral messages into stable and functional municipal administrations.
As Moakes warned, the clock is already ticking. Not only must parties find a way to govern together, but they must also demonstrate to residents that coalition politics can deliver something more than political compromises and competing claims to power.