As South Africa approaches the local government elections on November 4, public attention focuses on personalities, party rivalries and the perennial speculation about who will become mayor in Joburg, Cape Town and eThekwini.
This is understandable. Elections generate drama, and drama attracts attention. However, this focus risks obscuring a far more consequential reality.
The elections are not merely a contest over who governs. They are a test of whether South Africa is prepared to confront fundamental questions about the design, purpose and viability of local government itself. These are questions the political class has shown little appetite to address honestly.
What is a municipality for?
South Africa’s legislative framework provides a clear answer. The constitution (sections 152-153), the 1998 white paper on local government, and the Municipal Systems Act envision municipalities as engines of local transformation, extending beyond service provision to developmental outcomes.
Yet this vision is increasingly misaligned with reality. The auditor-general’s recent reports indicate that fewer than one in five municipalities achieve clean audits, while many produce material financial irregularities.
Irregular expenditure continues to run into tens of billions of rand annually, reflecting deep and persistent governance weaknesses. Alongside this, a substantial body of academic research highlights erratic service delivery and systemic accountability failures. While there are pockets of success, they remain exceptions in a system under strain.
This raises a more fundamental concern: can municipalities fulfil a developmental mandate in the absence of a coherent national economic growth path? The deterioration of infrastructure in major metros such as Joburg, alongside chronic failures in municipalities such as Emfuleni, suggests that the challenge is not merely administrative but structural.
Many municipalities rely heavily on intergovernmental transfers — some derive more than 70% of their revenue from national allocations — posing a growing fiscal risk.
From a theoretical perspective, none of this is unsurprising. As research such as Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucratic capacity and Elinor Ostrom’s work on polycentric governance shows, effective institutions rarely emerge in isolation from broader economic conditions. South Africa increasingly expects municipalities to drive development without the economic foundations that would enable such outcomes. Yet this structural tension is absent from electoral debates.
South Africa increasingly expects municipalities to drive development without the economic foundations that would enable such outcomes
South Africa’s local government system comprises eight metros, 44 district municipalities and 205 local municipalities. This architecture was designed during the post-apartheid transition to overcome spatial fragmentation and establish a unified democratic system. That logic was historically sound. The question is whether it remains fit for purpose.
There is a long-standing case for reform. District municipalities often duplicate functions that could be performed more efficiently at local level, while overlapping mandates blur accountability and weaken administrative coherence. In some instances, this fragmentation dilutes already scarce technical capacity and complicates financial oversight, contributing to inefficiencies that have direct fiscal consequences. Despite this, institutional design remains marginal in public discourse.
Equally underexamined is the question of political and administrative capacity. Evidence, including from assessments by the department of co-operative governance & traditional affairs, indicates that many councillors are tasked with overseeing complex institutions and substantial budgets without having adequate preparation or technical expertise. This capacity gap has tangible financial implications, particularly in procurement, infrastructure planning and contract management.
Recent adjustments by major political parties in their mayoral selection processes may reflect an implicit recognition of these constraints. However, such changes remain incremental and do not address the systemic nature of the problem.
What emerges is a deeper structural condition that may be described as institutional stagnation within broader state incapacity — formal institutions continue in place but lack the adaptability, capability or alignment required to produce developmental outcomes.
This interpretation draws on Thandika Mkandawire’s argument that Africa’s challenge is not the absence of human capital but the misdirection of political and administrative effort. It also reflects Vusi Gumede’s observation that South Africa has the policy frameworks of a developmental state but struggles with execution and coherence.
Taken together, these insights point to a system that has the ideas and resources but is constrained by weak alignment between institutional design, capacity and economic conditions. The result is a form of inertia in which governance structures endure but fail to evolve in response to mounting challenges.
This helps explain why electoral debates can proceed without serious engagement with structural reform. The system reproduces itself without resolving its foundational weaknesses, even as fiscal pressures, service delivery failures and infrastructure backlogs intensify.
If the objective is to move beyond this, the conversation must shift towards structural reform with clear fiscal and developmental implications.
Here are some suggestions:
- Rationalise municipal architecture by, among other things, eliminating district municipalities and reducing the number of local municipalities where economies of scale and administrative efficiency can be achieved. For example, cut the 11 municipalities in Gauteng to six or seven.
- Recognise rural fiscal distress as a national economic risk. Many rural municipalities lack viable revenue bases and struggle to attract technical expertise. Addressing this requires targeted national intervention, including strategic investment in productive sectors such as agri-processing and light manufacturing, alongside the deployment of skilled professionals funded through the national fiscus. Without such intervention, intergovernmental transfers will continue to increase without corresponding improvements in outcomes.
- Professionalise local government leadership. The complexity of municipal governance has outpaced the assumptions of the early democratic period. Strengthening competency requirements, enforcing merit-based appointments and introducing clearer barriers to entry for political office at local level are necessary to improve governance outcomes, strengthen accountability and reduce fiscal leakage.
These suggestions may appear ambitious. However, the assumption that electoral cycles alone will produce developmental outcomes is arguably more unrealistic.
Pooe is associate professor at the Wits School of Governance
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.