SA’s social structure and economics central to coalition government endeavours — populism cannot prevail

The following are remarks by South Africa’s Deputy President Paul Mashatile on the occasion of the national dialogue on coalition governments, at the University of the Western Cape on 4 August, 2023.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to welcome all of you to this national dialogue on coalition governments. Our gratitude also goes to our hosts, the University of the Western Cape and the Dullah Omar Institute of Constitutional Law, Governance, and Human Rights.

This is the first time ever that the leadership of as many sectors of our country have met to deliberate on a critical issue that has caught the imagination of the nation and will undoubtedly resonate beyond our borders.

In reality, our deliberations over the next two days are several years late, in that, like everything else, our democracy has been continuously evolving, though with little collective reflection among the broad sections of our country’s leadership. Had we paused earlier to reflect on how best to promote and maintain consensus within our evolving democracy, we might have avoided some of the recent distressing scenes that have played out dramatically in some of our metropolitan municipalities.

The government is keenly aware of the challenge of addressing such a contentious issue as coalition building. Universally, every political party desires to govern. However, when an election produces no outright winner, parties are forced to enter into such partnerships as coalitions to facilitate the effective oversight and conduct of public affairs.

Whatever the configuration of governance, the electorate and the people as a whole expect from those who govern nothing less than the material improvement of their lives, a better future for themselves and their children as well as guarantees for peace and security.

Those who govern also owe accountability to the people. Without accountability, the process of governance is compromised. Additionally, where parties battle it out, like the feuding houses of Verona, other things also get lost: among them, improving the lives of the people is often compromised with negative impacts on the wellbeing of citizens. This is all the more so in a country like South Africa, which has, for the longest time, been the subject of international attention. This is accentuated by the age of social media, in which ordinary citizens can be as powerful communicators as any of the global news television and agencies.

Within minutes, a clip about some injudicious or downright ill-conceived incident in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, or any small town or village can reach a significant number of the world’s 6.92 billion smartphone users and inform perceptions about South Africa across the globe. These impressions invariably affect the choices and judgements, big or small, public or private, that others make about South Africa. In short, our audience is no longer just our fellow nationals; we sit in a global fishbowl!

Yet, our political focus must unerringly remain on the well-being of our people. Our pursuit of national consensus on how to approach coalition governments is a matter of national interest. Properly handled, it has the potential to bring the necessary stability, especially to the local government sphere, despite the intemperance we have witnessed in relation to coalitions.

This dialogue, therefore, seeks to promote fidelity to the national interest so that we remain focused on the fulfilment of the constitutional injunction to build a united, democratic, non-racial, non-sexist, and prosperous society.

You will all have seen our discussion paper entitled “A Policy Framework Towards Stable Governance”. It makes the important point that “Coalitions are an unmistakable expression of choices that the electorate has made. It is democracy at work!” It also identifies problems and challenges in the local sphere of government, amongst them: “lack of skills, inadequate revenue, indifference from both administrators and politicians, and the substitution of the public good with self-interest”.

The document also makes an important point whose nuances must be kept in mind throughout our discussion. Whereas it asserts “a direct correlation between the constant collapse of municipal executives and them being coalition governments,” it also cautions that the “correlation... does not imply causality — that is, coalitions trigger collapses” in that “both the coalitions and their turbulence have separate triggers, albeit somewhat inter-related”.

However, the “frequent collapse” of coalitions at the local government level “is deliberate, sometimes even unrelated to the pursuit of the public good, and can be minimised down to a healthy level, with little detrimental effect on municipal administration”.

Other distressing problems the document identifies with our recent coalition experiences at the local government level and in the country’s major metropolitan municipalities include:

• opportunistic political behaviour, enabled by institutional loopholes;


• the lack of a threshold for the admissibility of a motion of no confidence and the vulgarisation and proceduralisation of the process that are not related to considerations of ethics and competence;


• the monetisation of votes and seats in municipal governance — patronage/rent-seeking, and;


• power-play and relevance; ganging up against incumbents.

• commitment to a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic, and prosperous society;


• coalition leadership based on the actual votes received by each party in an election;


• commitment to Batho Pele principles — putting people first;


• working towards poverty eradication through a growing and inclusive economy;


• good governance and zero tolerance for corruption.