ANC faces coalition scramble after electoral rout as control of key metros slips away

The ANC fell below 50% nationally in the 2021 local government election, winning about 47.5% of the vote. That was the first time the party failed to reach a national majority in a local election. The result weakened its control of major urban councils.

In Gauteng, the ANC lost outright majorities in Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni. No party could reliably govern alone in these metros. Council seats were divided among the ANC, DA, ActionSA, the Economic Freedom Fighters and smaller parties. Parties therefore needed agreements to elect mayors and pass budgets.

This changed local politics from ANC dominance to coalition bargaining. The ANC could still win many seats, but it could not automatically control the councils. The result also created opportunities for opposition parties to influence leadership and policy. Coalition stability became the key test for whether metros could maintain consistent administration and services.

A hung metro is a metropolitan council in which no single party wins more than half the seats. The council still exists and can make decisions, but no party has enough votes to govern alone. The term describes the balance of seats, not a suspension of local government.

After the 2021 election, major Gauteng metros had divided councils. The ANC was the largest party in some of them, while the DA, ActionSA, the EFF and smaller parties held the remaining seats. To elect a mayor or speaker, approve a budget, and pass other decisions, parties had to combine their votes.

Coalitions can take several forms. Parties may sign formal agreements, support a minority administration, or negotiate issue by issue. If partners withdraw support, the council can become unstable. A hung metro therefore turns routine governing into continuing negotiation, with direct consequences for leadership and municipal planning.

Three of Gauteng’s major metros became dependent on coalition agreements after the 2021 local election. They were the City of Johannesburg, the City of Tshwane and Ekurhuleni. In each, the seat distribution meant the ANC could not depend on an outright council majority.

The key mechanism was proportional seat allocation. Several parties won substantial representation, but none secured more than half the seats. The largest party therefore still needed partners. Smaller parties could become decisive by supporting one side in mayoral elections, budgets, motions of no confidence and other council votes.

This made Gauteng a major test of coalition government. Agreements could give a party control, but only while partners continued voting together. Changes in alliances could replace mayors or block budgets. The experience also showed how a national electoral setback could quickly reshape administration in the country’s biggest metropolitan areas.

The DA and ActionSA are important because both won meaningful representation in Gauteng’s metropolitan councils. In a hung council, their seats can supply the extra votes that the ANC or another opposition grouping lacks. Their importance comes from their numbers and bargaining position, not simply from their national profiles.

For example, a party may be the largest bloc but still fall short of half the seats. It must then seek support from the DA, ActionSA, the EFF or smaller parties. Partners can negotiate over the mayor, committee positions, policy priorities and mechanisms for monitoring the administration. A written coalition agreement can make those commitments clearer.

Their involvement creates both opportunity and risk. They can help replace ANC-led administrations, but coalition partners may disagree over policy or leadership. If support breaks down, a mayor may lose a confidence vote and the council may struggle to approve its budget. Their choices can therefore affect daily municipal government.

When coalition partners cannot agree, a metro may lose its mayor or fail to pass important decisions. A mayor normally needs continuing council support, so partners can remove one through a no-confidence vote. The council may then need to elect another mayor, sometimes after repeated political bargaining.

Budget approval shows the mechanism clearly. Municipal budgets require enough councillors to vote in favour. If coalition partners abstain or oppose the proposal, spending plans can be delayed or rejected. Political disputes can also block appointments, oversight decisions and long-term development plans. Each failed vote makes administration harder to coordinate.

The practical risk is inconsistent service delivery. Instability can slow procurement, planning and infrastructure work, while repeated leadership changes distract officials and councillors. A coalition can still govern effectively when agreements are clear and partners cooperate. Without that discipline, the metro faces uncertainty over leadership, finances and basic municipal performance.

The result was especially significant because the ANC had governed South Africa nationally since 1994 and had long been the dominant force in many municipalities. It was used to winning enough support to form governments without depending on rivals. The 2021 local election showed that this pattern was no longer guaranteed.

The change was visible in major metros, where the ANC could remain the biggest party yet lack a majority. Instead of choosing its mayor and passing decisions alone, it had to negotiate with opponents and smaller parties. This transferred influence from the historically dominant party to coalition partners and made council politics more competitive.

The setback also carried a wider warning. Urban voters were increasingly able to deny the ANC complete control, even where it remained powerful. Future elections could produce more councils with divided seats. The ANC would therefore need to rebuild support, while other parties would need to prove that coalition government can deliver stable and effective municipalities.

South Africa’s local elections use a mixed system. Some councillors are elected directly from wards, while others receive seats through proportional representation. Party votes determine the proportional component, so a party’s overall support is translated into council seats rather than giving all seats to the largest party.

Suppose several parties each win substantial support. They can collectively hold most of the seats even though none has more than half. The largest party may therefore lead the council but still need another party’s votes. Those votes are required for decisions such as electing the mayor, approving the budget and passing council resolutions.

This system can make councils more representative, but it can also produce coalition governments. Coalition partners must agree on leadership and policy after voters have distributed the seats. If the parties cooperate, the arrangement can function. If they split, the council may face confidence votes, delayed decisions and administrative instability.