**Governance is ultimately about institutional resilience: ** The past decade has demonstrated that it is not the face of the mayor that residents experience but the tangible outcomes of effective governance. Issues like water shortages, power outages, and bureaucratic delays grip communities, shaping their interactions with local government far more than a candidate's media-friendly speeches ever could.
Image: Supplied
On 26 January 2023, Mpho Phalatse, Johannesburg's first black woman executive mayor and a medical doctor who had campaigned on competence and clean government, was removed from office by a motion of no confidence.
She wasn't accused of corruption. She wasn't accused of incompetence in any way a court would recognise. She lost because the coalition arithmetic beneath her shifted, and nobody had ever asked her, on the campaign trail, what she would do when it did. Johannesburg has since cycled through enough executive mayors that it's now tracking toward its eleventh in ten years. Not one of those changes was decided by voters.
That's the real story behind every mayoral election in this country, and it's worth sitting with before the next one.
There is something theatrical about the way South Africa chooses its mayors. Every election cycle, parties unveil their candidates with the seriousness of presidential launches. Newspapers publish profiles explaining why one contender is more experienced, more dynamic, more capable than the next. Social media turns the contest into a personality competition. Who has the stronger CV? Who speaks better? Who can fix the municipality?
Beneath all of it sits a question that gets almost no airtime: who is going to govern with the mayor?
A municipality is not a one-person enterprise. A mayor does not personally repair the water network at midnight, collect refuse on a Tuesday morning, approve building plans, process invoices, manage procurement, or turn a manifesto into thousands of administrative decisions. That work belongs to an institution, and institutions are governed by teams. Yet our mayoral debate routinely collapses political leadership, financial management, engineering capacity and crisis response into a single face on a poster. That is not leadership. That is political mythology.
This is no longer a theoretical distinction.
South Africans go to the polls for local government on 4 November 2026, and the arithmetic is already known: no single party has governed Johannesburg, Tshwane or Ekurhuleni alone since 2016, and Nelson Mandela Bay and eThekwini have joined that list since 2021. Analysts expect the pattern to deepen this cycle, not resolve. In most of South Africa's major cities, the question "who will be mayor" has for a decade mattered less than "who will the mayor have to govern with, and on what terms."
Parliament has noticed. The Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, the so-called Coalition Bill, is currently moving through the legislative process precisely because informal, undisclosed coalition bargains have proven repeatedly unstable. Among its proposals are published coalition agreements, minimum term protections against snap no-confidence motions, and clearer rules on how executive positions get allocated. That a bill like this is necessary is itself the argument. Voters have been asked to ratify governments whose actual terms were never disclosed to them.
Winning and governing are different skills, and coalition politics keeps exposing the gap between them.
Winning an election requires mobilisation and a compelling narrative. Governing requires negotiation, budgets, procurement systems, credible financial controls under the Municipal Finance Management Act, and the discipline to make unpopular calls with no applause attached. A brilliant mayor can preside over a failing municipality if the administration beneath them is hollow or captured. A mediocre mayor can inherit one that keeps functioning despite political weakness, because a professional administration is doing the actual work. Municipal performance is the product of an ecosystem, not a single office-holder's charisma.
That means the manifesto is the wrong document to interrogate. It tells you what a party wants, not how it will be done. It is easy to promise safer streets; it is much harder to explain how policing, bylaw enforcement and infrastructure maintenance will be coordinated. Politics tells us what should happen. Governance determines whether it does.
Five questions every mayoral candidate should have to answer before November:
First, who is your governing team? Not the people standing behind you at the launch, but the named individuals with the technical, financial, and administrative capability to execute the mandate, starting with who chairs finance and who owns infrastructure.
Second, what is your coalition strategy, in writing? If you can't win outright, what principles determine which compromises you'll accept, and will the agreement be published before the vote or only after the deal is done?
Third, what is your institutional reform agenda? King IV is explicit that the governing body sets direction while management executes — a separation South African municipalities routinely blur when political principals instruct officials directly on procurement or appointments. How will you keep that line intact while still holding administrators accountable for performance, rather than letting them hide behind it?
Fourth, what will you measure, and against what standard? Not ribbon cuttings. Section 71 of the Municipal Finance Management Act already requires monthly financial reporting on revenue, expenditure and cash flow, and most residents have never seen it, because most candidates have never been asked to explain it. Publish it. Campaign on it: revenue collection rates, vacancy rates in critical technical posts, capital expenditure spent against budget, and unqualified versus qualified audit outcomes.
Fifth, what is the plan for when it goes wrong? Infrastructure fails, budgets tighten, coalitions fracture, contractors default. No municipality governs in ideal conditions. The real test isn't whether a mayor can claim credit when things go well. It's whether the system can absorb a shock, identify its cause, and correct course without collapsing the government in the process.
That is what institutional resilience looks like, and it's what Johannesburg has spent a decade failing to build.
We should not be electing heroes. We should be electing governments.
A candidate has a face and can make a five-minute speech promising transformation. Institutional reform takes years and has to be implemented through budgets, procurement, systems and people, none of which show up on a campaign poster. So when the next list of mayoral candidates is published, the first question shouldn't be "who do you like?" It should be: show us the team, show us the coalition agreement, show us the reform plan, show us the financial strategy, and show us what happens when the politics gets difficult.
Because residents don't experience government through a mayor's speeches. They experience it when the tap runs dry, when the lights go out, when a pothole sits untouched for a year, when a business waits months for an approval that should take weeks. Governance is not what politicians say from the podium. It is what citizens experience when nobody is watching.
Publish the mayoral candidates. Interrogate their records. Debate their competence. But then ask the question that sits beneath the campaign: who will govern with you, and will you tell us before we vote, or only after?
*Nyaniso Qwesha is a governance, risk and business professional, author and public commentator. *
