One of the most common themes of the discourse surrounding South Africa’s upcoming local government elections has been the expectation of an increase in the number of hung councils. This has led to repeated denunciations of coalition governments by candidates, especially from the larger parties, who claim that they lead to nothing but instability and chaos. Taking a different tack, some commentators have argued that the proliferation of coalitions represents a maturing of South Africa’s democracy as a diverse voter base which seeks representation for its different interests. So, are coalitions really as bad as some fear? And if so, why? Or should we be celebrating coalition governments as a testament to democracy?
It is certainly true that when coalitions appear in the news, it is generally in the context of infighting and collapse. The City of Johannesburg, for example, has seen a succession of mayors, with ten different people occupying the position over the last ten years. While not all of these changes were political, these frequent leadership reshuffles have been blamed for the city’s declining infrastructure. The argument is that frequent changes of leadership and shifting priorities leave policies unimplemented and programmes unfinished before new initiatives are launched. This lack of direction leads to widespread inefficiency and wastefulness, as well as to uncertainty among the civil servants responsible for delivering services, further delaying programmes. On top of this, larger parties often claim that coalitions leave them at the mercy of smaller parties that exercise a disproportionate influence compared to their share of the vote. These smaller parties, they claim, hold them to ransom over policy and portfolio positions and prevent the larger parties from implementing their manifestos and agendas or governing effectively. Consequently, many larger parties have tried to woo voters away from smaller parties with the promise that, while they may not share all their policy priorities, if they secure a majority, they will be able to make decisions quickly and effectively.
These arguments are compelling, but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that they are perhaps too simplistic. Firstly, coalition governments are more stable than high-profile media-coverage often suggests. This is due, in large part, to a general bias in both news reporting and consumption towards negative stories and large metropolitan (metros) municipalities. The 2026 Coalitions Barometer report published by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA), a comprehensive study of coalition governments in South Africa, shows that while coalitions in the metros have fared worse than others, coalitions are not inherently unstable. Of the seventy hung councils that were established after the 2021 local government elections, twenty-three remained essentially unchanged throughout the entire election cycle. Moreover, only twenty-two of these governments collapsed entirely, with the remainder occasionally rebuilt but retaining the same largest party. This suggests that the stability of a coalition depends on the specifics of local politics, the personalities and decisions of politicians and the mechanisms they employ to resolve differences. These are the same factors that determine the stability of single-party governments, but with the added complexity of multiple parties.
Another interesting finding of MISTRA’s report was that the presence and stability of a coalition government in a municipality did not significantly correlate with the outcomes of that municipality’s audits. While audits are by no means a comprehensive measure of governance, they do provide a rough indication of how well a municipality is administered because they demonstrate the capacity of an administration to perform the technical functions required to comply with financial statutes. This suggests that a government’s efficiency (or indeed inefficiency) runs deeper than the type of political arrangements under which it operates, relating more to the extent to which an administration, and its civil servants are exposed to or insulated from political contestation. At the very least, one can argue that stable political arrangements are only one ingredient in the recipe for good governance, alongside robust administrative capacity and reliable and transparent accountability mechanisms, and that the latter can to some extent compensate for the former when necessary.
At the very least, one can argue that stable political arrangements are only one ingredient in the recipe for good governance, alongside robust administrative capacity and reliable and transparent accountability mechanisms, and that the latter can to some extent compensate for the former when necessary.
Tweet
However, while the stability of coalition governments is important, there are further, possibly deeper, considerations to be taken into account. Even if single-party majorities promised total stability, voters should think carefully before trading the policies that are important to them for that stability. As the larger political parties are at pains to remind us, single-party rule allows governments to be more decisive and, barring legal challenges from the opposition, at least theoretically implement their decisions faster. But, if some voters vote for that party, not because its policies align most closely with their preferences, but because the party has a realistic chance of winning a majority, then at least some of the decisions it makes and implements may not be those the voters would prefer.
This can be a problem both for the voters themselves and for the parties that eventually win majorities. Voters risk empowering a party that then makes decisions that go against their preferences, with fewer opportunities to influence those decisions until the next election cycle. The parties themselves may be unable to enact their own policy agendas, which may be popular among their base, without alienating their own, albeit less committed, voters. Conversely, if they wish to retain their swing voters by moderating or deviating from their pre-election platforms, they risk alienating their base, who voted for them based on a specific policy agenda. Such voter dynamics can, in the face of electoral shocks, lead to large swings in the electorate and frequent changes of the ruling party at elections, which can in turn lead to policy whiplash as new governments attempt to undo the work of their predecessors. Put simply, encouraging the electorate to vote for a party because it has a chance of winning a majority but not because it has a popular policy platform, is neither a recipe for a satisfied electorate nor for stable policy.
Put simply, encouraging the electorate to vote for a party because it has a chance of winning a majority but not because it has a popular policy platform, is neither a recipe for a satisfied electorate nor for stable policy.
Tweet
There is, unfortunately, no hard and fast rule for evaluating the desirability of electing a coalition government. South Africans going to the polls next week will have to weigh up their own values and base their decisions on what the parties offer and the specific context of their own municipalities. It is important, however, that these decisions are made with a realistic picture of what both coalition and single-party governments entail and what trade-offs voters are making in each instance. While the stability and performance of many coalition governments have been better than some may presume, some voters may be justified in feeling that coalitions have not worked in their specific contexts, and that stability is ultimately worth sacrificing some of their policy priorities.
Adam Randera is an independent peacebuilder and researcher who specialises in transitional justice, youth- and gender- inclusivity and coalition governance.
