In presenting the Municipal Structures Amendment (Coalition) Bill, the department of co-operative governance & traditional affairs has confused institutional inflexibility with political stability in local government.
The proposed amendments will at best result in little improvement in the situation experienced by citizens living in coalition-governed municipalities; at worst it will cause greater chaos and a further decline in local government capability.
The bill introduces changes to municipalities in the executive mayoral system, creating a collective executive system in cases in which no party has obtained a majority of seats on the council. It covers the election or removal of municipal office-bearers by a show of hands, outlines grounds for their removal from office, and prohibits their removal within two years of being elected to office.
It further requires parties to form binding coalition agreements, and sets a minimum threshold of 1% of the valid votes cast for a party to qualify for a seat on the council.
The 2021 local government elections ushered in numerous minority and coalition governments in municipalities. These governments have often relied on a collection of small parties with one or two representatives supporting a larger party — generally the IFP, DA or ANC.
However, these coalitions have tended to rely not on policy or even principle, but on position and the ability to bestow patronage. This has made such governments remarkably unstable, with parties frequently willing to implode government merely to improve party positions or gain greater access to resources.
The use of thresholds in proportional government systems is common worldwide, with some thresholds as high as 5%. Even a threshold as low as 1% in SA will substantially reduce the number of one- and two-member parties in local governments.
Political entrepreneurs
However, the original purpose of SA’s proportional representation system was to admit as many diverse opinions as possible into the legislature, and in so doing avoid the exclusion of minority opinions that would create the risk of political mobilisation outside the political system.
The issue now is that the absence of thresholds has created low barriers to entry for political parties and has seen the emergence of political entrepreneurs focused on self-enrichment.
While this has little to do with thresholds, a key weakness for many coalitions has been when larger parties have compromised by appointing a candidate from a minor party, as pertained in Johannesburg until recently.
Not only did the party in question have limited electoral support, but it did not have any real support within the government caucus. There has thus been a tendency for mayoral committee members to act independently of the executive mayor.
Our current system places an impossible burden on political parties to form a government within two weeks of election results being announced, which can only result in wrangling for positions.
SA was recently exposed to eleventh-hour negotiations, and the resulting brinkmanship, that ended in the formation of the government of national unity (GNU). Yet despite consistent calls for the time to form local governments to be extended, the bill does not do so.
At the other extreme, the examples of the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium are often cited, highlighting that coalition negotiations there can take a year or more. While the work of government continues, this is undesirable.
While more time could ideally breed more long-term stability in SA, we need to create a system that provides more opportunities for politicians to negotiate and compromise on their manifestos, develop core principles and priorities for a coalition government, and manage the inevitable disputes that will arise, without allowing negotiations to go on indefinitely.
The bill will require political parties to make coalition agreements that are binding on the parties involved. Given the current time frame for negotiations, this places extreme pressure on parties to work within frameworks that are likely to be rushed and would not be wide-ranging.
Lacks transparency
The current system lacks transparency and parties are not held accountable. Making coalition agreements public could help voters understand the priorities of their local government and the disputes that arise.
For instance, the FF+ and ANC are in coalition after the ouster of the DA mayor in Oudtshoorn when the relationship between the FF+ and DA broke down over a procurement process. Creating greater transparency and accountability can improve legitimacy and government performance.
The bill’s most glaring lack is its failure to provide mechanisms to resolve disputes and manage coalitions, the most necessary provision for coalitions. Parties manage their conflicts through informal mechanisms, often subject to the vagaries of ego and desire for power.
The GNU could provide broader backing for better managing conflicts by establishing a conflict management mechanism within the co-operative governance & traditional affairs department’s framework, or through institutions such as the SA Local Government Association.
On a more ad hoc basis, coalition agreements could include formal mechanisms to manage internal conflicts and even facilitation mechanisms for contentious policy discussions. Conflict management is critical to avoid the frequent collapse of local government.
While the bill’s intent is stability, its failure to address conflict management, while embedding further conflict triggers, can only undermine it. The department and parliament would be better off providing greater transparency and accountability requirements, more time for deal making, and the tools to manage relationships constructively within the bill.
Such reforms could greatly enhance local governments’ capability and responsiveness to citizens. Furthermore, some lessons can be drawn from the approach taken to form the national government, which could be embedded in the law.
Coalition politics is now a fixture of SA government, and it is time we stopped treating it as an aberration.
• Bernhardt is director of business strategy at conflict management and development practice Concentric Alliance.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.