Opinion: Extraordinary leadership required after election outcome

Reading Time: 5 minutes

By Cherrel Africa

As has been widely noted, South Africa is now facing a situation where there could be a need for coalition arrangements at national and/or provincial level.

Those of us who study elections and voting behaviour are being asked to predict election outcomes and also to predict post-election alliances. Even with numerous pre-election surveys, it is difficult to predict the outcome. There are many possible scenarios – some more complex than others.

While coalition arrangements can work, our recent experience of coalition arrangements at local level leads to concerns about stability and the impact on governance if this now occurs at provincial and national level, following the 2024 elections.

While there are examples of stable coalition arrangements, we have also seen coalition arrangements in some of our metro areas governed by dynamics of transactional politics, political self-preservation, jostling, and arrangements underpinned by office-seeking and resource-seeking behaviour.

There have been so-called kingmakers making demands and/or abandoning agreements for transactional reasons. These dynamics have resulted in instability and key actors doing whatever it takes to hold the balance of power.

Importantly, political leaders themselves recognised the potential for these dynamics to take centre stage. In August 2023, the Office of the Deputy President and the Dullah Omar Institute, based at the University of the Western Cape (UWC), hosted a national dialogue to work on developing a framework for coalition governments.

The intention of the national dialogue was to agree on the set of fundamental principles on how coalition governments should optimally function. The theme was “working together to build strong and resilient institutions to serve the people”.

It would appear that the coalition framework was put on the “back burner” as the election timetable kicked in. This is understandable; with the elections looming, campaigning took centre stage.

However, now that we are turning our focus on the election itself, it is time for political leaders to reconsider the discussions that took place at the national dialogue event.

The period that follows the election outcome announcement will be critical. Once voters exit the ballot box and the voting, counting and verification process has been concluded, the negotiations that follow the announcement of the outcome will be an elite process.

What we need from our political leaders is for them to draw on this nation’s rich history and collective wisdom so as to reach consensus on these difficult matters in a way that preserves its future.

What we don’t need is for them to be guided by the incentive of access to power and resources. This will take extraordinary leadership. Political parties all signed the code of conduct which commits them to contribute to a climate of tolerance, free campaigning and open public debate. The campaign period has now wrapped up and what is needed after the election will require far more from political leaders and political parties.

Notably, we do not have the luxury of “like-mindedness”. In any negotiation process, it is of course preferable to have “like-minded” political parties negotiating. The fact of the matter is that in society, in workplaces, in universities, in schools and elsewhere, we have people that are not like-minded, working together to achieve great things. We have different world views, different philosophies, different belief systems.

We probably also disagree on how to do things. Yet, we work together with tolerance, respect and indeed friendship. We do this because we may have a common purpose (or at least overlapping purposes) and possibly shared values or because we simply must. If ordinary people who are not like-minded can work together to do their jobs, why must we expect anything different or any less from our political leaders?

Additionally, we have done it before. In the lead up to the 1994 elections, we were pulled back from the brink of disaster and in 1994, the negotiations were (of necessity) also an elite process. It must also be remembered that this was done under the most complex of circumstances.

Reconsidering the principles of the national dialogue event is necessary because of the critical juncture facing the nation. The myriad of intersecting problems, challenges and indeed crises have been well-ventilated. These relate to the economy, unemployment, the cost of living, energy, water, transport, health, infrastructure, crime and more. South Africans are at breaking point. We have to untangle the knot that we find ourselves in.

Indeed, we need collaboration underpinned by principles that can take us forward because a continued downward spiral is not inevitable. Our leaders need to do this so as to create the basis for a new path and a new way of doing things.

The work to be done in this regard will not be easy, it is hard – that must be acknowledged. Political leaders will face a complex and difficult set of decisions – they will face both internal and external pressures and will need to consider the long-term impact of their decisions.

Nevertheless, putting the nation above party interests is not only possible – it is necessary.

Cherrel Africa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).