Fourteen days to find a mayor — Mashaba holds the key, ANC the lock

Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni and Tshwane are Gauteng’s major metropolitan councils. After the local-government election, none had a clear ruling majority. That created the need to negotiate a mayor and a governing arrangement within 14 days. The deadline matters because councils need leadership to begin functioning politically and administratively.

The clearest example in the supplied headlines is Ekurhuleni. News24 projected that the DA could dethrone the ANC there, while ActionSA was surging. Those results changed the old ANC-led balance but did not automatically give the DA control. Council seats had to be combined through agreements or support arrangements before a mayor could be elected.

The reported political reality was therefore wider than a single mayoral contest. Gauteng’s metros became bargaining arenas involving the ANC, DA, ActionSA and other parties. The headlines specifically identify Ekurhuleni, while the 14-day deadline and Gauteng-wide reporting point to a broader leadership challenge across the metros. The final outcome depended on negotiations, not simply on which party finished first.

ActionSA secured 54 wards across Gauteng’s metropolitan municipalities, according to the SABC News headline. The figure shows a significant breakthrough for a newer party, but it does not mean ActionSA dominated the metros. The ANC and DA, as the established major parties, won more seats overall and remained the largest blocs in the councils.

The important mechanism was not simply the number of ActionSA wards. It was whether those seats could deny the ANC or DA a majority. In a divided council, a smaller party can become decisive when the leading parties are close. Its councillors may provide the votes needed to elect a mayor, approve leadership structures or pass key decisions.

That is why ActionSA’s result attracted attention beyond its raw total. The supplied reports describe the party surging, making inroads and securing 54 wards across Gauteng metros. Its representation was smaller than the major parties’ totals, but it could determine who governed. The result turned ActionSA into a central negotiating force.

A hung municipal council is a council in which no party holds enough seats to command an outright majority. In practical terms, no single party can reliably elect a mayor or pass decisions on its own. The result is shared power, usually through a coalition or a minority administration supported by other parties.

The mechanism is straightforward. Councillors vote to elect the mayor, and the candidate needs sufficient support in the council. If the ANC, DA, ActionSA and other parties hold divided blocs, the largest party still cannot govern alone. It must negotiate votes, positions, policy commitments or an agreement to support the administration.

That explains the urgency in the Gauteng reports. The ANC was described as being in trouble, the DA was projected to dethrone it in Ekurhuleni, and ActionSA was making inroads. Those shifts produced bargaining power rather than an automatic winner. A hung council can encourage cooperation, but it can also create instability if agreements collapse or councillors withdraw support.

ActionSA holds the balance of power when neither the ANC nor the DA can reach a majority without its councillors. The party may be smaller than both established parties, but its seats can become decisive in a close council. This is the central meaning of the report that Mashaba “holds the key” while the ANC holds “the lock.”

The mechanism is vote arithmetic. If the ANC and DA are unable to elect a mayor alone, ActionSA can negotiate with either side or with a wider group of parties. It might support a candidate, join a coalition or remain outside government while backing particular votes. Its bargaining strength comes from being necessary, not from being the largest party.

The Gauteng results created this leverage. ActionSA secured 54 wards across metropolitan municipalities, and reports described it as surging and making inroads. The ANC was said to be in trouble in Gauteng, while the DA was projected to overtake it in Ekurhuleni. Mashaba’s party therefore became central to deciding who could assemble governing support.

If parties cannot agree on a mayor or governing coalition, the municipality still exists, but its political leadership becomes uncertain. Councillors may repeatedly fail to elect a mayor, or an elected mayor may lack dependable support. That weakens the council’s ability to provide clear direction and make decisions requiring majority approval.

The practical mechanism is legislative deadlock. Budgets, plans, appointments and other council decisions need votes. Without a stable majority, meetings can be delayed, proposals can be defeated and coalitions can collapse. Administrative officials may continue carrying out routine duties, but they cannot replace the political authority of a functioning council.

The supplied headlines do not spell out a specific legal consequence for each Gauteng municipality. In general, unresolved deadlock can lead to another vote, a new coalition attempt or provincial intervention under applicable municipal law. The 14-day deadline makes the negotiations urgent. Gauteng’s shifting results, including ActionSA’s 54 wards and the projected DA advance in Ekurhuleni, made agreement necessary for stable government.

The first option is a formal coalition. Two or more parties agree to support one mayor and usually divide executive positions or set shared priorities. A party may then hold the mayor’s office even though it lacks a majority itself, provided its partners supply enough council votes.

A second option is a minority government. One party nominates the mayor but governs without a formal coalition, relying on other parties to support it during the mayoral vote and on important decisions. Confidence-and-supply agreements are more structured: another party promises to keep the administration in office and support essentials such as budgets, while remaining outside the executive. Parties can also make temporary, issue-by-issue deals.

These arrangements are relevant to Gauteng because the reported results produced no automatic winner. ActionSA’s 54 wards could support the ANC, the DA or another grouping. The strongest arrangement would be the one that secures enough votes and remains durable. Without dependable support, even a successfully elected mayor could face repeated defeats or removal.

South African municipal mayors are elected by the municipal council, not directly by all voters. After an election, councillors vote for a mayoral candidate. The candidate who secures the required council support takes office, while the council remains the arena where governing power is assembled.

Ward seats are crucial because they determine how many councillors each party controls. Parties also receive council representation through proportional allocation, but ward victories are a visible and politically important part of the overall result. No party can govern alone unless its combined council representation gives it enough votes. Otherwise, it must recruit coalition partners or outside support.

That system explains the Gauteng outcome described in the reports. ActionSA secured 54 wards across the metropolitan municipalities, while the ANC and DA remained larger forces. Yet the major parties’ size did not guarantee control where councils were hung. ActionSA’s councillors could therefore help elect a mayor, support decisions or deny another party the votes needed to govern.