Efforts to stabilise South Africa’s municipal coalitions must strengthen service delivery without weakening accountability. Repeated changes of leadership can make local government harder to run, but keeping the same person in office is no achievement if the municipality continues to fail. Stability must give leaders time to deliver while keeping them answerable when they do not.

Following the Local Government Elections held on 4 November, this distinction matters. When no political party wins a majority, negotiations determine which political parties will be part of a coalition government. Residents need those negotiated arrangements to last long enough for budgets to be implemented and projects to be completed. They also need councillors who monitor a mayor’s performance and are willing to ask questions and demand answers.

What the Constitution requires

Section 152 of the Constitution places democratic and accountable local government alongside sustainable services. Section 153 requires municipal planning and budgets to prioritise communities’ basic needs. Continuity and stability matter because they are vital in helping to fulfil those responsibilities.

There is a reasonable case for discouraging political manoeuvring that repeatedly changes an executive. Officials need clear direction, and projects need sustained attention.

The proposed Municipal Structures Amendment Bill B23–2026 would generally limit the tabling of a notice to remove an executive mayor or deputy to once in twelve months. Parliament had indicated that the Bill would not be finalised before the elections. It nevertheless raises a question that incoming coalitions must answer: what protects residents when the governing coalition arrangement survives but performance deteriorates?

The danger of protecting failure

The Bill’s exceptions are important. They include constitutional violations, specified convictions, financial misconduct, serious breaches of the councillor code and inability to perform the functions of office. The proposal therefore does not give mayors unconditional protection for a year. It also proposes stronger public accounts committees to scrutinise municipal affairs.

The concern is whether these safeguards will work when failure is politically inconvenient to acknowledge. Coalition partners may have reasons to defend an incumbent mayor even when promised improvements do not arrive. If every substantiated complaint is dismissed as “politicking” and an attempt by a political opponent to destabilise the coalition government of the day, accountability and responsiveness become undermined.

Consider a council repeatedly receiving reports that a repair programme is behind schedule. The mayor’s position remains secure because coalition partners still support the arrangement. The relevant question is whether councillors demand an explanation, verify it and insist on corrective action. Changing the mayor may not fix the problem. Accepting repeated failure without a credible response will not fix it either.

Under section 151(2), municipal authority rests with the council. Councillors who helped elect a mayor still owe residents scrutiny of that mayor’s performance. Supporting a governing programme should not require silence about its failures. A coalition majority must remain willing to hear evidence against its own leadership.

The law already provides a basis for those questions. Section 52(d) of the Municipal Finance Management Act requires the mayor to report quarterly to council on budget implementation and municipal finances. Section 75 requires publication of those reports online. Section 54 requires action when financial problems emerge.

Coalition stability must be based on accountability

Incoming coalition partners should connect their main service commitments to approved municipal plans and available funding. Residents should be able to see what will be done, by when, and which office or government department is responsible and answerable. An agreement about who governs needs a programme against which that government can be judged.

Councils should then make their scrutiny visible. When targets are missed, they should record the explanation, the corrective steps required and the date for reviewing progress. Residents deserve to know whether their representatives accepted an explanation and why. A report being received cannot be the end of accountability.

Parliament should also clarify how the proposed inability-to-perform exception would operate. Councillors need a workable procedure for presenting evidence, and mayors need a fair opportunity to respond. Persistent failure must be capable of examination without every disagreement becoming another fight over positions.

A leader need not be convicted of a crime before questions about an inability to do the job can be considered. Parliament should make that distinction clear in the procedure it designs.

Fairness matters. Section 152 recognises financial and administrative limits. A mayor cannot personally repair every pipe or overcome every funding shortage. Accountability means examining what leaders could reasonably do and whether they did it.

Coalition stability is vital to make government dependable for residents as it provides government with the time needed to implement budgets and programmes. However, stable coalitions must not shield a mayor from having to answer, explain and take corrective measures for poor performance.

For more on this topic read: Coalitions in Focus: Local and Municipal Governance in South Africa