South Africa After the Vote: What Is Political Power For?
On 4 November 2026, millions of South Africans went to the polls to elect their local governments, In doing so, they made their voices heard, exercising a democratic right that was won through struggle, in a country where many still wait for that democracy to reach their street.
While the final electoral figures remain subject to minor adjustments, the results reported by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) already provide a clear picture of the distribution of political support across the country. The African National Congress (ANC) remained the largest political party, but its share of the vote fell to approximately 31%, down from 45.6% in the 2021 municipal elections. More broadly, the election results have left traditionally dominant parties navigating a new political terrain, where established majorities can no longer be taken for granted and political power increasingly depends on negotiation and cooperation.
The electoral process is a fundamental component of democracy, giving citizens the right to choose their political representatives and to hold them accountable, including the opportunity to vote out those who fail to fulfil their mandate and putting the trust in new or different political actors.
Beyond the numbers, three observations deserve particular attention, raising important questions about the present and future of South African democracy.
The first is voter turnout. While an increase in voter participation compared to the previous municipal elections is encouraging, it cannot overshadow the reality that nearly half (48%) of registered voters did not cast their ballots.
The reasons for this may vary from declining confidence in the political alternatives on offer and growing skepticism about whether voting can meaningfully improve people's lives, to broader barriers that discourage electoral participation. Whatever the reason it is clear that many citizens remain disengaged from the electoral process. Lower voter turn outs deserves greater attention in post-election reflections. Political parties, civil society and democratic institutions must invest in understanding why 48% of registered voters did not vote and develop meaningful strategies to address the growing distance between citizens and electoral politics. This status quo also calls for more deliberate voter engagement and mobilisation ahead of the 2029 National Elections.
The second observation concerns the increasingly plural political landscape. In many municipalities, no single party secured an outright majority. As the dominance of a single political party gives way to greater political competition, voters are presented with a wider range of political alternatives. Coalition politics is notably becoming an established feature of South African democracy since the 2024 National Elections.
This growing shift presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic governance. Greater political plurality can strengthen accountability, encourage political responsiveness and create space for more diverse voices and interests to shape local governance. However, increased competition does not automatically translate into more representative or effective governance. The growing reliance on coalitions raises important questions about political maturity, the ability of parties to negotiate across differences and their willingness to prioritise the needs of communities over narrow party interests. As coalition politics becomes more entrenched, the challenge will be to ensure that political plurality translates into meaningful democratic participation, stable governance and improved service delivery, rather than becoming another arena for political contestation disconnected from the everyday realities of citizens.
A third consideration is how voters judge political promises against their own experiences. We should not underestimate their ability to do so. Political rhetoric and ideological appeals may influence electoral choices, but everyday experiences matter too. People know whether public services work, whether their communities are becoming safer and whether their living conditions are improving. They have their own experiences against which to measure political commitments, and these matter when deciding whom to entrust with the responsibility to govern.
Coalitions: negotiation is not automatically democracy
These results also offer an opportunity to rethink what it means to receive a political mandate from citizens and the responsibilities that come with exercising political power.
Whatever individual voters may have intended, their collective choices have created a political landscape in which parties must negotiate, listen to one another and find ways to govern together.
A fundamental question raised by the election results is whether coalition agreements will honour the mandate citizens have entrusted to political leaders: will they be able to govern in their interests and improve their lives or serve primarily to distribute political positions and secure influence?
Political parties differ in their ideologies, programmes and visions for society, as well as in their proposed responses to the social and economic challenges people face. These differences matter. Their election manifestos should offer voters meaningful political alternatives, with clear proposals for governing society and delivering tangible improvements to people's lives.
However, even within these ideological differences and competing political approaches, particularly in the context of coalition governments, the needs and interests of citizens must remain paramount. Political competition and coalition negotiations should not come at the expense of effective governance, accountability and the delivery of essential services. While political parties may differ on how to address the country's challenges, they share a responsibility to uphold democratic principles, respond to the lived realities of communities and ensure that political differences do not undermine the collective responsibility to improve people's lives. Ultimately, the measure of democratic governance should not simply be which parties hold political power, but how that power is exercised in the interests of the people they represent.
Imagine the electoral outcome being understood as a call from citizens to their political leaders:” Talk to one another. Negotiate your differences in our best interest. Take the best of what each of you has to offer. Find common ground and compromise where necessary. Instead of fighting over who gets power, fight for the best solutions to our needs.”
Political differences will remain, and some will be difficult to reconcile. But for those entrusted with governing finding ways to turn political commitments into effective, long-term and sustainable solutions for the betterment of the whole of society is paramount.
Political Competition Must Deliver More Than Political Change
Political competition, while an important feature of a functioning democracy, cannot be an end in itself. Changes in political leadership, shifting party majorities and new coalition arrangements must ultimately be measured against their ability to respond particularly to the social and economic realities confronting communities. For communities who continue to experience poverty, unemployment and inadequate access to basic services, a change in political leadership offers little reassurance if it does not translate into tangible improvements in their lives.
This raises a broader question about the relationship between electoral democracy and social and economic justice. Democracy cannot be reduced to the opportunity to vote every few years, particularly when the structural inequalities that characterised South Africa's past continue to shape who has access to opportunities, resources and meaningful participation in society. Political parties must therefore demonstrate not only how they intend to govern differently, but how their proposed policies and programmes will address these persistent inequalities. Ultimately, the credibility of democratic governance rests not only on the legitimacy of electoral processes, but also on the extent to which democratic institutions can respond to people's needs and aspirations.
Whose Grievances and Realities Shape Political Priorities?
While many communities continue to bear the consequences of unemployment, poverty and failing public services, these burdens are not shared equally. Gender, race, class, persistent historical inequalities between communities shape people's experiences of these challenges. When essential services fail, for instance, women often carry a disproportionate share of the additional work needed to keep households functioning. And when police services fail to adequately respond to the needs of victims of gender-based violence, it is most often women and children who bear the consequences of injustice.
Recognizing these unequal realities is essential if political commitments to improving people's lives are to translate into meaningful change. It requires asking whose experiences shape political priorities in the first place. Finding better solutions depends not only on the proposals put forward, but also, and perhaps above all, on whose understanding of the problems determines which solutions are pursued.
Political commitments must therefore be judged by whether the proposals are brought to coalition negotiations, and the compromises reached, recognize these unequal realities and contribute to transforming them.
Anger is legitimate — scapegoating is a choice
There is yet, however, another dimension of the unequal experiences of challenges.
People's frustration with their living conditions is without doubt legitimate, and what political leaders choose to do with that frustration matters enormously. Will they confront the structural causes of poverty, inequality and failing public services, or redirect public anger towards others?
The political instrumentalization of migration and marginalized communities illustrates precisely this danger. Presenting migrants for example, as responsible for unemployment, crime or failing services may offer a convenient explanation for people's frustrations. It leaves the underlying problems unresolved though. Rather than addressing the causes of people's hardships, such politics risks turning legitimate grievances into resentment against others. The danger is that this politics of othering can snowball, normalizing exclusion and discrimination while creating fertile ground for further scapegoating of other marginalized groups. What begins as political rhetoric can gradually shape public attitudes, deepen social divisions and undermine the democratic principles of equality, dignity and inclusion.
Political Power Comes with Responsibility
All of these considerations bring us back to the fundamental question of how political mandates are understood and exercised. The fragmented electoral landscape offers an opportunity for different political practices, one in which negotiation and compromise become ways of finding better solutions to people's challenges and needs. Whether this opportunity is realized, however, depends on the priorities that guide those negotiations and the political commitments that emerge from them.
Those entrusted by citizens with a political mandate must now turn promises into reality. What matters most after these elections is not simply who gains political power, but what those who govern will actually do for the people they serve. Their response may also determine whether more citizens see value in exercising their democratic right the next time they are called to the polls.
Ultimately, political power is not an end in itself, but a responsibility towards the citizens who confer it.
This piece was edited with Mase Ramaru - Democracy and Social Justice Program Manager
Other related articles here