Johannesburg 2026: The ANC Is Down, But Is It Out?”
INSIGHTJOZINEWS.ORG | POLITICAL OPINION
JOHANNESBURG 2026: THE ANC IS DOWN, BUT IS IT OUT?
The EFF and MK Party may sense an opportunity, but Johannesburg's political battle is far more complicated than a simple rejection of the ANC.
By Noko Maleka | InsightJoziNews.org | Opinion | 22 October 2026
Johannesburg is approaching a defining political moment. As South Africa prepares for the 2026 local government elections, the contest for control of the City of Johannesburg has become a battle over service delivery, political credibility, coalition government and the future of the country's economic heartland.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) are among the political forces seeking to challenge the established order. The Democratic Alliance and ActionSA are also competing to shape the city's future. Meanwhile, the African National Congress faces the difficult task of defending its record after years of mounting public frustration.
It would be tempting to declare the ANC finished in Johannesburg. But that would be premature. The party has weaknesses, a difficult record to defend and residents who are tired of excuses. Yet it also retains community networks, experienced local representatives and supporters whose political loyalties cannot simply be dismissed.
The question is not merely whether the ANC can lose Johannesburg. It is whether the parties hoping to replace it can demonstrate that they are ready to govern a city as complicated and demanding as Johannesburg.
The ANC's failures are real. So is its grassroots presence.
No serious discussion about Johannesburg can ignore the frustrations of its residents. Deteriorating infrastructure, unreliable services in some communities, concerns about municipal finances, neglected public spaces and the daily struggle to obtain responses from local government have weakened public confidence.
The ANC must answer for its years in government wherever it has been responsible for municipal decisions. Its liberation history cannot serve indefinitely as a substitute for performance. Residents want functioning streetlights, dependable water and electricity, clean streets, safe roads and a municipality that responds when people ask for help.
Yet one important distinction is often lost in the noise of election campaigns: a party's failures at leadership level do not automatically erase the work of every councillor, community organiser or local representative associated with it.
Across Johannesburg, the ANC retains a political presence and a network of local representatives. Some have built relationships with residents through community engagement, casework and efforts to resolve everyday problems. For the residents who have experienced that service, the relationship is personal rather than ideological.
A resident who has worked with a councillor to resolve a community problem may not be persuaded to abandon that representative simply because senior party leaders have disappointed them. A voter can be angry with the ANC, dissatisfied with the city administration and still believe that a particular local councillor deserves another opportunity.
This is the political reality that the opposition must confront.
The ANC, however, cannot rely on its grassroots presence alone. It must demonstrate that its local achievements are meaningful, measurable and sufficient to justify renewed trust. It cannot expect residents to accept sweeping claims of success without evidence.
Equally, its opponents should not assume that every ANC supporter is blind to failure or that every ANC councillor has failed their community.
The EFF and MK Party: opportunity is not the same as readiness
The EFF and MK Party enter this political contest with an opportunity to attract voters who are frustrated with the established parties. Their challenge is to turn that dissatisfaction into credible plans for municipal government.
The EFF has built its political identity around economic transformation, inequality and the redistribution of opportunity. The MK Party has also sought to mobilise voters around dissatisfaction with the existing political order. Both must now demonstrate how their political messages translate into practical solutions for Johannesburg.
Johannesburg cannot be governed through slogans alone. It requires financial discipline, reliable municipal entities, infrastructure maintenance, capable officials, effective oversight and the ability to build a working majority in council.
A party may attract support because residents are frustrated with the status quo. Once in office, however, it must deliver under the scrutiny of the same residents who demanded change.
The opposition must explain what it would do differently. How would it address water and electricity infrastructure? What would it do about roads, refuse collection, public safety and deteriorating public spaces? How would it improve municipal finances while attracting investment and protecting ordinary residents?
These are the questions that separate an election campaign from a credible plan to govern.
Johannesburg does not simply need a party that can defeat its opponents. It needs an administration that can defeat the failures residents experience every day.
Herman Mashaba and the 2016 political turning point
The 2016 local government elections marked a decisive turning point in Johannesburg politics. The ANC lost its outright majority in the city, and Herman Mashaba of the Democratic Alliance became mayor after opposition parties helped create the council majority needed to replace the ANC administration.
Mashaba's victory was significant, but it was not achieved in isolation. It emerged from a broader electoral shift and the willingness of opposition parties to cooperate. Without the council arithmetic and political support that made his election possible, he would not have become mayor.
His supporters can reasonably point to the significance of that victory. His critics can equally argue that the circumstances surrounding it deserve closer examination. The truth is that Johannesburg's political transition in 2016 was a collective opposition achievement, not the personal victory of one individual alone.
As Mashaba and ActionSA seek to influence the city's future, his mayoral record should be examined on its own merits. What did his administration accomplish? Which programmes produced lasting results? Which commitments remained unfulfilled? And what lessons did Johannesburg learn from the political arrangements that brought him into office?
Mashaba resigned from the mayoralty in 2019 amid a political dispute with the DA. It would be simplistic to attribute every difficulty he encountered to sabotage by his party, just as it would be simplistic to credit him personally for every achievement made during his administration.
A fair assessment must separate the mayor's decisions from the performance of the wider administration, the condition of the municipality he inherited and the political support or resistance he encountered in council.
What kind of city did Mashaba inherit?
This question deserves more attention than it often receives in political debate.
Johannesburg did not begin experiencing municipal difficulties in 2016. Like other major metropolitan areas, it entered that period with infrastructure pressures, growing service-delivery demands, financial obligations and the consequences of years of urban expansion.
The city's problems cannot fairly be attributed to one administration alone. At the same time, inheriting problems does not absolve a mayor of responsibility for addressing them.
Mashaba's administration had to work within the limits of municipal institutions and a council in which cooperation between parties was essential. The coalition arrangement created an opportunity for change, but it also created political vulnerabilities. Different parties had different priorities, and their cooperation depended on relationships that could deteriorate.
The same lesson applies to every party seeking the mayoralty today.
The ANC cannot blame every failure on sabotage, hostile coalitions or administrative resistance. Opposition parties cannot assume that replacing ANC leadership will automatically repair years of accumulated infrastructure and institutional challenges.
Claims of sabotage or deliberate obstruction should be supported by evidence. Political disagreement, poor management and genuine institutional weaknesses are not interchangeable explanations.
Johannesburg needs an administration capable of identifying the causes of failure and correcting them, rather than turning every municipal problem into an argument about who is to blame.
Coalition government: the promise and the disappointment
Johannesburg's recent political history has demonstrated that winning enough seats to influence government is not the same as building a stable administration.
Coalitions can broaden representation, force parties to negotiate and create alternatives where no single party commands a majority. But they can also become fragile when partners disagree over leadership, policy, appointments or political priorities.
When coalitions repeatedly struggle to maintain cooperation, residents are left wondering who is accountable for the city's direction.
The consequences are not abstract. Municipal budgets must be approved. Infrastructure projects require continuity. Departments need clear direction. Residents need to know which representatives are responsible for resolving their problems.
Political instability does not excuse the failures of any individual party. It does, however, require voters to assess the conduct of coalition partners as well as that of the largest party.
If the ANC loses support, the parties seeking to replace it must demonstrate that they can work together beyond election day. If the ANC hopes to regain confidence, it must show that it has learnt from its own administrative shortcomings and from the instability that has affected the city.
Neither side should be allowed to present coalition politics as an excuse when it is convenient and a democratic achievement when it is not.
The ANC's remaining strength should not be mistaken for immunity
The ANC remains a formidable political organisation, with a long history, established community networks and supporters who continue to identify with its local leadership.
That strength is not proof that the party deserves to govern Johannesburg again. It is proof that writing it off would be a mistake.
The party may benefit from residents who distinguish between national political disappointment and the work of their local representatives. It may also draw support from voters who remain committed to its broader political tradition.
But the ANC cannot rely on history alone. The condition of the city will weigh heavily on voters, and the party must confront the consequences of its decisions wherever it has been responsible for municipal governance.
Nor should claims that the ANC is responsible for 90% of what is good in Johannesburg be accepted as an established fact without a clear accounting of what that figure means. Such a claim belongs in the political debate, but it needs evidence before it can be treated as a measurable assessment of the city's performance.
The more useful question is this: which improvements can be documented, which failures can be attributed to particular decisions, and which leaders have demonstrated the ability to deliver?
That is how residents can distinguish a serious record of service from an election-season narrative.
Johannesburg's voters must judge people, not just party labels
A local government election is ultimately about the people who will represent communities and make decisions on their behalf.
Residents should ask whether their ward councillor is accessible, whether complaints receive meaningful responses, whether local priorities are raised in council and whether public resources are managed responsibly.
They should also examine the mayoral candidates' programmes, experience and ability to build an administration that works.
A popular candidate is not necessarily a capable municipal leader. A familiar party is not necessarily the best choice. And a promise of change is not a guarantee of better services.
Johannesburg's voters have the right to demand evidence, not merely eloquence.
The ANC must defend its record. The EFF and MK Party must demonstrate that their alternatives are practical and sustainable. The DA and ActionSA must explain how their respective approaches would produce better outcomes, including how they would work with other parties in a divided council.
Every candidate should be judged by the same standard.
The devil Joburg knows — or a change it can trust?
The most compelling argument against the ANC is that Johannesburg cannot afford another administration that fails to meet the basic expectations of its residents. That argument deserves to be taken seriously.
But the alternative cannot simply be a coalition of parties united by their opposition to the ANC and divided by what should happen after it leaves office.
Voters may decide that the ANC has had enough opportunities. Others may conclude that certain ANC councillors have earned the right to be judged separately from the party's broader failures. Still others may favour an opposition candidate whose plans they believe offer a better future.
All are legitimate democratic choices.
The phrase “better the devil you know” may capture the hesitation of voters who fear another period of coalition instability. Yet familiarity is not a sufficient reason to accept poor performance, just as anger is not a sufficient reason to endorse an untested alternative.
The choice should be based on the evidence available to voters, the credibility of each candidate's programme and the likelihood that the next council can govern effectively.
Johannesburg deserves more than a contest over political personalities. It deserves a contest over competence, accountability and the future of the city.
The final verdict belongs to the voters
In South Africa's local government system, voters elect councillors, and the council then elects the mayor. That means the composition of the council and the willingness of parties to work together are just as important as the names on campaign posters.
The ANC may be wounded, but it should not be dismissed. The opposition may be energised, but it must still prove that it can govern. And Johannesburg's voters should not have to choose between defending familiar local leaders and demanding a better city.
They deserve both: representatives who serve their communities and an administration that works.
The real test of the 2026 election will not be which party delivers the sharpest criticism or the most memorable slogan. It will be whether the next city leadership can restore confidence, maintain essential services, manage public money responsibly and demonstrate measurable progress.
Johannesburg's future should not be determined by political nostalgia, anger alone or promises without substance. It should be determined by informed voters who demand accountability from everyone seeking their support.
The ANC must prove it still deserves a chance. The opposition must prove it is ready to govern. And Joburg's residents must never settle for less than a city that works for all who call it home.
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
This is an opinion article. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of every contributor or reader of Insight Jozi News.
Comments
Post a Comment