Ekurhuleni Voters Assess Local Government Performance Ahead of November 4 Elections

Why it matters

On October 22, 2026, President Cyril Ramaphosa gathered officials at the Birchwood Hotel in Ekurhuleni to launch the Revised White Paper on Local Government. The event, titled “Every Municipality Must Work: From Policy to Collective Action,” highlighted a disconnect between executive policy and the reality of a metro struggling with service delivery. While the President spoke of a “differentiated approach” to governance, residents continue to face failing infrastructure and erratic service.

The state is attempting to reframe the narrative of local government failure ahead of the November 4 elections. By introducing a framework that acknowledges varying capacities of municipalities, the state is attempting to manage expectations. For the average voter, the distinction between a “well-developed” municipality and an “impoverished” one is a lived experience of water, power, and sanitation access.

The White Paper does not address the lack of accountability that has affected local institutions. Contrast this with the political energy in Mamelodi, Tshwane. As the Democratic Alliance (DA) prepares for its final national rally, the focus is on frustration regarding coalition instability and service decay.

The DA’s campaign, led by Helen Zille, has tapped into the sentiment that the current municipal model is broken. This divergence between the government’s policy-heavy approach and the opposition’s focus on service delivery failure is the dynamic of the 2026 election cycle. The government’s reliance on the White Paper assumes voters are interested in structural reform, while the electorate focuses on immediate survival.

The ANC’s struggle to maintain its grip on power reflects its inability to reconcile policy rhetoric with governance performance. At the heart of the new White Paper is the concept of a differentiated approach, which seeks to tailor municipal support to specific development needs. Proponents argue this will allow for efficient resource allocation, but critics state this ignores the reality of patronage networks that have captured local government.

According to critics of the framework, without a shift in how budgets are managed and officials are held accountable, the policy provides new avenues for corruption. The policy risks creating a two-tier system where wealthy municipalities are insulated from national grid failures while poorer areas are left to fend for themselves. By formalizing inequality, the government risks abandoning the constitutional promise of equitable service delivery.

For residents of neglected wards, critics argue this signals a failure of the state to close the gap between promise and reality. Critics also state that without a robust, independent mechanism to hold officials accountable, any policy framework is destined to fail. The current reliance on party-line voting has protected incompetent officials, and the evidence suggests the traditional party-based approach to local politics is losing its efficacy as a tool for mobilization.

What we don't know yet

Critics of this analysis argue that the White Paper is a first step toward long-term stability by acknowledging structural differences. This view ignores the urgency of the current crisis, as the collapse of local infrastructure is happening now. Furthermore, the argument that policy reform can fix institutional decay is a contention. Critics argue that this institutional decay has been linked by observers to years of patronage, corruption, and the erosion of the rule of law. No amount of white papers can fix a system described by critics as a system functioning for the benefit of a few. The only way to address this is through a change in the political culture of local government, which requires a level of accountability the current administration has not provided.

What to watch

As the November 4 elections approach, the stakes remain high. The election is about who will control municipal councils and serves as a referendum on the current democratic model. If the results show a decline in support for the ruling party, it will signal that the electorate has lost faith in the government’s ability to deliver basic services, forcing a political realignment where coalitions become the norm.

For political strategists, the focus must shift to the specific needs of local communities and building coalitions based on shared governance goals. Winners will be those who demonstrate a commitment to service delivery over political posturing. For policymakers, any attempt to impose a national framework without addressing localized failures will be met with resistance.

For institutional investors, the risk of municipal collapse is a primary concern. The instability of local government coalitions and the deterioration of infrastructure pose a threat to long-term development. It is essential to support initiatives that promote transparency and accountability at the ward level.

We anticipate three potential scenarios for the post-election period: a continuation of instability; a shift toward localized, independent governance; or a period of intense political realignment. Watch items include the outcome of the November 4 vote in key battleground metros, the speed and stability of coalition negotiations, and any signs of increased civil unrest in response to service delivery failures.