The 2026 local government elections in SA might be remembered not just for the way voters cast their ballots but also for the actions of political parties after the votes are tallied.
The nation is about to face yet another crucial test of coalition politics: can parties with disparate beliefs, interests, and electoral bases create governing arrangements that benefit communities?
The answer may be illustrated through an unlikely metaphor: Irish coffee.
Irish coffee combines sugar, cream, Irish whiskey, and coffee.
Each component has a distinct personality, but how they are mixed determines the final beverage.
The desired experience is altered if a necessary component is left out or if the combination is not brought together.
Coalition administrations in SA deal with a similar issue. Despite sharing a council chamber, negotiating stances, and signing agreements, political groups are still unable to come up with a cohesive plan for governance.
After the local government elections on November 4, the question is whether SA's political elements will form useful alliances or continue to exist as distinct interests momentarily sharing the same political space.
In the metaphor, coffee stands for the municipality as a whole, including its finances, administration, infrastructure, and service delivery obligations.
Coalition politics should be structured around it. Even the most complex political arrangement cannot ensure dependable water, electricity, sanitation, refuse removal, or responsible expenditure in the absence of a functional municipal administration.
Whiskey stands for the political aspirations and ideological identities that parties bring to talks.
These distinctions are not intrinsically problematic. Parties with varying perspectives on social policy, public ownership, economic development, and municipal budgets may form a partnership.
The question is whether a shared governmental agenda can effectively handle these disparities.
Sugar in this case represents compromise. Coalition partners rarely obtain everything they want, and negotiation requires concessions.
Yet compromise becomes difficult when it is understood only as the exchange of political positions rather than agreement on public priorities.
Cream represents the public trust in the image of unity, the press conferences, signed agreements and promises of stability that accompany coalition formation.
However attractive that image may be, it cannot substitute for the work happening beneath the surface.
The metaphor raises a fundamental question on whether the parties are negotiating a common municipal programme, or merely access to political office?
Coalition government is not new to SA, but the 2016 and 2021 local government elections made it an increasingly significant feature of municipal politics.
When no party secures an outright majority, parties must negotiate arrangements to elect mayors and other office bearers and to sustain council support.
The national government’s own explanation of coalitions acknowledges both their potential to broaden representation and the risk that instability can distract councils from service delivery.
The experience since 2021 illustrates the scale of the challenge.
The Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection’s 2026 Coalition Barometer, as reported by the Daily Maverick, found that 80 of SA's 213 directly elected municipal councils had been hung at some point between the 2021 elections and February 2026.
Those municipalities experienced 175 different administrations during the period examined.
The report also identified administrations that remained in place, demonstrating that coalition instability is not universal.
The danger of a badly mixed coalition:
The Irish coffee scenario becomes especially relevant when parties agree on who should hold office but fail to agree on what the municipality must achieve.
A coalition agreement may allocate mayoral positions, committee chairpersons and responsibilities among parties.
These arrangements can be necessary for establishing a government, but they do not, by themselves, constitute a service-delivery programme.
A functioning coalition needs agreement on priorities, budgets, senior administrative appointments, procurement oversight and performance monitoring.
It also needs a way to resolve disagreements without turning every dispute into a threat to the governing arrangement.
This is where the distinction between political bargaining and governing becomes crucial.
When negotiations focus predominantly on positions, residents may struggle to identify what the coalition intends to accomplish.
When negotiations produce measurable commitments, citizens have a clearer basis for assessing performance.
If the various polls that have been published recently are any indication, the 2026 elections could produce further fragmented councils and complex negotiations.
Recent analysis has identified the possibility of more hung councils, although the eventual results and the coalitions that follow cannot be known in advance.
The crucial test will not simply be whether parties can assemble enough council votes.
It will be whether they can agree on a credible programme, maintain administrative continuity and make their commitments measurable.
Coalition agreements should therefore identify a limited set of municipal priorities, specify implementation responsibilities, establish realistic timelines and provide regular public reporting.
They should also include transparent procedures for resolving disputes and explain how essential municipal services will be protected during political disagreements.
Voters, meanwhile, should scrutinise not only party manifestos but also the record of parties in municipalities where they have participated in government.
Their questions should include: What did the party commit to? Which decisions did it support?
What results can be verified? How did it respond when the coalition encountered difficulties?
These questions apply equally to large and small parties. Political accountability should follow participation in governing, not merely the size of a party’s electoral support.
The Irish coffee scenario ultimately asks whether coalition partners understand that the municipality exists to serve its residents, not the political interests of those who occupy council positions.
Different ingredients do not need to become identical to form a coherent mixture.
Similarly, political parties do not need to abandon their identities to govern together.
They do, however, need agreed rules, a shared programme and a commitment to accountability.
After the elections, the measure of a coalition should therefore be neither the number of parties at the table nor the elegance of its political agreement.
It should be the extent to which the arrangement enables effective administration, responsible spending, transparent decision-making and tangible progress on residents’ priorities.
SA's coalition question is not simply whether different political ingredients can be combined. It is whether they can be combined around a common public purpose.
The ultimate test is simple: when the political cream settles, will residents be left with a functioning municipality and with another round of negotiations about who gets to hold the cup?
Dr Xolisile Ngumbela, assistant dean: teaching and learning, department of government management, faculty of management sciences, Central University of Technology.