15.9 million voters reshape local politics as coalitions loom

The 2026 local elections drew a much larger participation share than the previous local vote. About 15.9 million South Africans voted, including people who cast special votes. With 29.2 million registered voters, that represented approximately 54.5% turnout. In 2021, turnout fell to 45.87%, or about 12 million voters.

The difference was roughly 3.9 million additional voters and nearly nine percentage points. The 2021 election took place during the Covid-19 pandemic and was also affected by abstention among ANC supporters. The ANC acknowledged that much of the earlier decline came from its traditional voter base.

The increase does not necessarily show a broad revival in political enthusiasm. Tessa Dooms said turnout may have risen because municipal failures were increasingly affecting middle-class communities. Jonathan Moakes described the result as closer to a return to pre-pandemic participation levels than an extraordinary surge.

A hung council has no single party with enough seats to command an outright majority. That matters because a council still needs to elect a mayor, approve budgets and make policy decisions. Without majority support, the largest party cannot govern alone.

For example, if five parties divide the seats, two or more may negotiate a coalition agreement. They can combine their numbers behind a mayor and agree on priorities, committee positions and a budget. Parties may also support a minority administration without formally joining it, depending on the issue.

The article says at least five metropolitan municipalities could have hung councils. That raises the prospect of fragile coalition governments. Such administrations can deliver change when agreements hold, but disagreements may cause leadership changes, blocked budgets or instability. The results therefore matter beyond party rankings: they could determine whether municipalities can govern consistently.

The preliminary results point to a more competitive political landscape. The ANC was losing support, including in some rural areas. The DA appeared to be the biggest winner and was on course to become the largest party in Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni. ActionSA was performing particularly well in Gauteng townships.

The EFF appeared among the biggest losers. Jonathan Moakes suggested ActionSA was benefiting from declining EFF support in Gauteng, while the MK party was attracting some EFF voters in KwaZulu-Natal. He also linked smaller-party gains, including those of the United Democratic Movement, to voters considering alternatives to the ANC.

These shifts are significant because they could change who governs major urban councils. The DA’s metropolitan gains may increase its bargaining power, while ActionSA’s township performance gives it influence in Gauteng. The ANC’s losses and the EFF’s weaker showing make coalition negotiations more likely in several municipalities.

If no party wins more than half the seats, Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni could enter coalition government. The largest party would not automatically control the council. It would need agreements with other parties to elect a mayor, form an executive and pass budgets.

The article says the DA was on course to become the biggest party in all three municipalities. That position could give it the first chance to negotiate. However, being the biggest party is different from holding a majority. Smaller parties, including ActionSA and other growing alternatives, could determine which side reaches a governing majority.

The likely result is bargaining over leadership and policy. If partners cooperate, the councils could function and address service failures. If agreements are fragile, municipalities could face repeated disputes, leadership changes or difficulty approving plans and budgets. The article warns that at least five metros may face this wider coalition challenge.

Unreliable municipal services can turn local government from a background issue into a daily problem. The article links higher participation, especially in Gauteng’s urban areas, to frustration with unreliable water and electricity, poor sanitation, damaged infrastructure and inadequate refuse removal.

Tessa Dooms said middle-class households had sometimes insulated themselves by paying for private services. That protection became less affordable when residents still paid municipal rates while investing in alternative electricity and water supplies. Load reduction and water protests in suburban areas showed that municipal dysfunction was reaching communities previously less exposed to it.

This may explain why Gauteng recorded a particularly large increase in turnout. However, Dooms cautioned that the rise should not be treated as a broad revival of political engagement. She also warned that campaigns could prioritise organised, affluent communities over poorer residents, whose service needs remain severe.

When no party has a majority, parties negotiate to combine enough council seats to govern. They may agree on a mayor, deputy positions, committee leadership and a shared programme. A formal coalition can involve several parties, while a minority government may seek support vote by vote.

The key mechanism is continued council support. Partners need to approve budgets, development plans and other major decisions. They can maintain cooperation through written agreements, regular meetings, shared oversight and clear rules for resolving disputes. They may also divide executive responsibilities so each partner can show voters what it has achieved.

Coalitions become unstable when parties disagree over policy, appointments or access to power. A partner can withdraw support, block decisions or join another grouping. The article’s warning about fragile coalitions is especially relevant because at least five metros could lack outright majorities. Stable agreements would be essential for consistent municipal service delivery.

Local governments are responsible for delivering and managing many everyday municipal services. These include water, electricity distribution, sanitation, refuse removal, roads, local infrastructure and related community facilities. Effective councils must plan services, maintain systems, set fair charges and respond to residents’ needs.

Municipalities usually raise money through property rates, service charges and tariffs paid by households and businesses. They also receive an allocation from national government, known as the equitable share, plus conditional grants for particular infrastructure or service programmes. Borrowing and other lawful income can supplement these sources, but budgets must balance planned spending with available revenue.

The article describes failures in water, electricity, sanitation, infrastructure and refuse removal as major sources of public frustration. It also notes that households may pay municipal rates while buying private alternatives. Stronger councils would need both reliable revenue management and effective administration to turn funding into functioning services.