As South Africans prepare to vote on 4 November, one final question deserves consideration: Are we voting for the future we want, or are we voting based on the past we remember, the political loyalties we inherited and the emotions we experience today?
We often assume voters carefully evaluate political parties, their performance and promises before making an informed decision. In reality, voting behaviour is considerably more complicated.
For many South Africans, political affiliation is deeply rooted in history, family traditions, race and community identity. These attachments can be powerful and enduring, sometimes surviving long after the circumstances that created them have changed.
There is nothing inherently wrong with political loyalty. The problem arises when loyalty becomes blind, when voters continue supporting a party regardless of its performance or ability to deliver.
If we expect politicians to be accountable, should we not also reconsider our support when their performance falls short?
In local government, performance is often visible and measurable. Roads are maintained or neglected. Refuse is collected or it is not. Water infrastructure functions reliably or it does not. Municipal finances are managed responsibly, or they are not. Yet political debates frequently move away from these realities towards historical loyalties and emotional arguments.
Politics has always been emotional. Hope, fear, anger, pride and frustration influence political behaviour. Political parties understand this and frequently appeal to these emotions to mobilise support.
This is where voters must be particularly careful of those who deliberately exploit racial divisions and fear for political gain.
South Africa’s history of racial discrimination and inequality cannot be ignored. However, addressing these challenges constructively is very different from exploiting them for political advantage. Race hustlers and fearmongers thrive on division. They exploit historical grievances, exaggerate threats, portray opponents as enemies and encourage communities to view one another with suspicion.
Social media amplifies these messages, often without context or factual verification. The objective is frequently not to inform voters, but to provoke anger, reinforce prejudices and influence political behaviour.
Voters should be suspicious of anyone whose political message depends more on making them fear or hate others than on explaining how they intend to improve their communities.
Anger over poor service delivery may be justified, and concerns about the future may be legitimate. The danger arises when emotions replace critical thinking.
An angry voter may support almost any alternative without considering whether it can govern more effectively. Equally, a loyal supporter may overlook serious shortcomings because criticism of their party feels like a personal attack.
Voting for change is not necessarily voting for improvement
Replacing a political party does not automatically guarantee better governance or service delivery. Equally, retaining an incumbent does not necessarily mean rejecting progress, provided its performance justifies continued support.
Throughout this series, we have explored local government, political trends, misinformation, election promises and manifestos. Ultimately, an informed vote requires more than loyalty, dissatisfaction, fear or the desire for change. It requires judgement.
On 4 November, before making that cross, perhaps we should ask ourselves three questions:
Am I voting out of loyalty to the past?
Am I voting because of how I feel today?
Or am I voting because I genuinely believe this choice offers the best future for my community?
Because the purpose of an election should not merely be to change who governs us, but to improve how we are governed.
- Dr Clive Coetzee is a professor at the Faculty of Military Science, University Stellenbosch.
ALSO READ: MORE THAN JUST A VOTE | Guess who pays for those (fancy) election promises
