Thirty-two years into democracy, the ANC has received less than a third of the national vote in the 2026 local government elections. That is not a statistical footnote. It is a rupture.
The ANC secured 30.76%, down from 45.59% in 2021. The DA received 24.64%, the MK Party 9.76%, the EFF 6.22% and ActionSA 5.67%. South Africans are no longer voting out of habit, history or gratitude. They are voting or staying home out of frustration and desperation.
Beyond who gained or lost sits a more important question: do we understand what we are voting for?
Democracy is more than the right to vote
The ANC’s role in securing the democracy born in 1994 is historical record. But gratitude for political freedom is not a contract for permanent loyalty. Unemployment, inequality, corroded infrastructure and unequal access to opportunity define daily reality for millions. Acknowledging the sacrifices that secured our democracy does not require silence about the failures of those entrusted with governing. It demands the opposite.
The people who don’t vote are part of the conversation
Voter turnout was 52%, an improvement on 45.9% in 2021. That is not a triumph. About 14.9 million voted from a registered electorate of 29.2 million. Almost half stayed home. I want to belive people abstain for many reasons lost confidence, feeling unrepresented, believing nothing will change regardless of who governs. Not voting does not remove anyone from the consequences. When we stay home, we hand the decision to those who show up and forfeit influence while remaining subject to policies we had no say in.
The question is not simply why people are not voting. It is why so many feel disconnected from a process that determines whether a qualification leads to employment, whether a salary covers basic expenses, whether services function.
Beyond the promises: what do the policies mean?
The ANC’s 2026 local government manifesto commits to investing at least 8% of municipal asset value annually in infrastructure maintenance and renewal and to filling critical municipal management vacancies within 120 days. In practice, this means maintained water pipes, functioning wastewater treatment works, reliable electricity infrastructure and qualified officials managing municipal finances.
The DA proposes ending cadre deployment, prioritising merit-based appointments, ringfencing water revenue for water infrastructure and reinvesting electricity revenue into electricity networks. It supports allowing households and businesses with surplus electricity to feed it into municipal grids.
These proposals affect electricity reliability, tariffs and alternative power, but raise questions neither party has answered. If electricity revenue is ringfenced, how will municipalities fund other services? If private companies take a larger role in water infrastructure, what protects affordability and public access? These are not abstract debates. They determine what we pay and who is accountable when systems fail.
The EFF advocates state ownership of strategic resources and land redistribution without compensation. The MK Party and ActionSA bring their own priorities. Every party must deliver clear policies and accountability. We must understand the limits of local government, for example a municipality cannot change national immigration law or nationalise the mining industry. When campaign promises exceed the powers of the office sought, voters shoud ask how ? parties should be challenged.
Political literacy is essential
I’ve come to learn that political parties thrive where public understanding is absent. A promise that sounds transformative on a campaign stage can be empty if the office has no authority to deliver it.
This is where political literacy becomes essential. Voters need clear education on what each tier of government can and cannot do before they reach the ballot box. Political literacy workshops should be a standard feature of every election cycle, not an afterthought. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), if it is not already, should be custodian of this process. An informed electorate is the foundation of a functioning democracy.
What happens after the celebrations?
The conversation did not end at the voting stations. Social media has generated celebration, criticism, satire and renewed debate about race, land, immigration and leadership. The loudest voices do not represent the majority. What matters is the impatience behind those conversations. People want functioning municipalities, safer communities, employment and services that do not depend on promises recycled every election cycle.
Coalition politics adds responsibility. Parties must now negotiate beyond the distribution of positions and agree on practical programmes. When coalitions collapse, we residents deal with the fallout. We need to be more deliberate about engaging with politics. When a party promises jobs, ask which industries, what investment, what measurable targets. A promise of free services requires an answer on funding. When it proposes privatisation, nationalisation or land reform, demand to know what that means in practice, not in slogans.
We cannot participate in democracy only through party colours, personalities and campaign speeches. Our future depends on whether we question the institutions entrusted with shaping it.
The ballot has been counted. Now the real work of governing begins. The question we should carry beyond this election is not whether our preferred party won but whether we understand the future its policies are intended to create, and whether we are prepared to hold it to account.
ALSO READ: Opinion | Before we get on the political bus
