DA and ActionSA face coalition test as Gauteng metros hang in the balance

A coalition government is a partnership between parties that together control enough municipal council seats to govern. It becomes necessary when no party wins an outright majority. The parties must agree on who leads the municipality and how decisions will be made. This matters because cooperation can determine whether local government is stable and effective.

For example, the Democratic Alliance and ActionSA may need to work together in Gauteng metros after the 2026 local elections. Their combined support could help decide who governs Johannesburg or Ekurhuleni. In return, parties may negotiate leadership roles, policy commitments and other conditions. The agreement must give the coalition enough support to pass decisions.

The article warns that coalition talks can be complex. An arrangement that suits Johannesburg may not suit Ekurhuleni or Tshwane. Parties must stay flexible without abandoning core principles. If disagreements over influence or leadership become too strong, forming a stable municipality becomes harder.

The DA and ActionSA could become decisive because election results may leave councils without a single governing majority. The DA appears to have the largest share among the three major parties in several Gauteng metros. However, being first does not automatically give it control. A smaller party can become essential if its seats complete a majority.

The article identifies Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni as councils where no outright winner emerged. If the DA needs additional votes to govern, ActionSA could negotiate support for a coalition or another governing arrangement. Its bargaining power would come from the number of seats it holds, not simply from being a prominent opposition party. Leadership and policy conditions could shape the deal.

The outcome will differ by municipality. Vusi Gumbi said negotiations depend on the numbers, participating parties and attached conditions. The DA and ActionSA have political differences, so cooperation is not guaranteed. Their choices could determine who governs these metros and possibly others in Gauteng.

Control usually requires a majority of all council seats, meaning more than half. The exact number depends on the council’s size, so the article does not provide one universal seat figure. A majority lets a party or group choose leadership and support decisions with greater confidence. Without it, governing usually requires agreements with other parties.

For example, if a council had 100 seats, a party or alliance would generally need at least 51 to control it. A party with 40 seats could still be the largest party, but 60 seats would remain with other groups. Those groups could form a rival coalition or demand conditions before offering support. The key mechanism is combining seats, not ranking first.

In Gauteng, the DA appears to have the largest share among three major parties, but that does not automatically translate into control. ActionSA’s seats could therefore decide the governing arrangement. The final result depends on each municipality’s numbers and negotiations.

Parties forming a coalition can negotiate leadership positions, policy commitments and the conditions for supporting a governing arrangement. These terms matter because parties need both influence and a workable plan. A coalition is not just a promise to vote together. It is an agreement about how the municipality will be led and how disagreements will be handled.

For instance, the DA and ActionSA could discuss who receives important leadership roles while also setting conditions for cooperation. Their support might depend on particular policies or guarantees about decision-making. The article highlights competing expectations around leadership positions as a possible obstacle. Such expectations can make an agreement difficult even when the parties need each other’s seats.

The precise bargain may differ across municipalities. Vusi Gumbi said negotiations depend on the numbers, parties involved and conditions attached. He urged flexibility without compromising core principles. Pre-election promises are not always final, because parties that once ruled out cooperation have later entered agreements.

If parties cannot form a stable governing coalition, the municipality may lack dependable support for leadership and council decisions. That can make governing uncertain and slow. A council may need repeated negotiations to pass important decisions. This is why coalition stability matters even after election results are known. The article focuses on this risk, although it does not detail every legal consequence.

In Johannesburg or Ekurhuleni, for example, the DA might need ActionSA or other parties to reach a governing majority. If those parties disagree over leadership or principles, no durable arrangement may emerge. Parties could remain locked in bargaining, or an agreement could be too fragile to last. The central mechanism is the inability to assemble and maintain enough council support.

The article says disagreements over political influence and leadership could derail stable local government. Vusi Gumbi therefore expects complex, changing negotiations. Parties must remain flexible while protecting core principles. The eventual arrangement may also differ between Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni and Tshwane.

Coalitions depend on local political arithmetic. Each municipality has its own seat totals, party strengths and possible combinations. It also has different leadership expectations and policy conditions. Therefore, an agreement that gives one group enough influence in Johannesburg may not provide the same balance or majority in Ekurhuleni or Tshwane.

For example, ActionSA might hold enough seats to complete a governing arrangement in one metro but not another. The parties involved could also differ. Their demands may change with the available numbers and the leadership positions on offer. Vusi Gumbi specifically warned that an arrangement suitable for Johannesburg might not work in Ekurhuleni or Tshwane.

This makes coalition negotiations municipality-specific rather than automatic. Parties must assess each council separately and remain flexible. They also need to protect their core principles. If competing expectations become too strong, differences may prevent a stable agreement even when cooperation is numerically possible.

Under proportional representation, parties receive council seats broadly in proportion to the votes they win. A party with about one-third of the vote will usually receive roughly one-third of the relevant seats, subject to electoral rules and rounding. This system can give several parties meaningful representation instead of producing one dominant winner. It therefore often creates the possibility of coalition government.

For example, if three parties receive 45%, 35% and 20% of the votes, they might receive similar proportions of seats. The party with 45% would be largest but still below the more-than-half threshold. It would need another party’s support to control the council. In South African municipal elections, councils use a mixed system, with ward and proportional-representation councillors; the article itself does not explain this mechanism.

That helps explain the Gauteng negotiations. The DA may lead in support but still lack control. ActionSA’s seat share could decide whether a majority is assembled. Exact outcomes depend on each municipality’s vote and seat distribution.