Suliman Rajah, writes:
Coalition politics cannot resolve inequality while the economic system that reproduces it, remains intact.
The 2026 municipal elections have left JB Marks Municipality with a hung council. The ANC has secured 22 seats, the DA 21, while the remaining parties share 24 seats. A minimum of 34 seats is required for a governing majority.
The arithmetic allows several possibilities. Either the ANC or DA could assemble a coalition with smaller parties. Alternatively, the two largest parties could govern together, commanding 43 seats.
The immediate negotiations will concern who becomes mayor, how executive positions are distributed and which parties will control the municipality’s political machinery. But residents should look beyond the coalition arithmetic. The more important question is: will a new governing arrangement change the material conditions of the majority of people living in JB Marks? A coalition can secure a majority in council without securing a better future for its residents.
A rightward shift in local politics
The election results also reveal a significant rightward shift in the political balance of the municipality. The EFF, with five seats, and the SACP, with one, are the principal formations with an explicitly left-wing political identity in the new council. More conservative and market-oriented political formations have strengthened their representation.
This matters because political coalitions do not operate outside the economic interests that shape society. The danger is that parties with different electoral identities may nevertheless converge around essentially the same economic framework.
The ANC’s historical liberation credentials cannot obscure its adoption of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in 1996 and its subsequent commitment to neoliberal economic policies. Nor can differences in political rhetoric disguise the extent to which successive governing formations have embraced market-driven development, privatisation, outsourcing and fiscal austerity. A change of coalition partners does not necessarily mean a change of economic direction.
How did we get here?
The inequality confronting JB Marks has its roots in apartheid’s deliberate dispossession, racial segregation and unequal distribution of land, wealth, infrastructure and economic opportunity.
But its persistence after 1994 cannot be separated from the neoliberal economic framework adopted and maintained by successive governments. GEAR marked a decisive turn towards fiscal restraint, liberalisation, privatisation and the increasing commercialisation of public services.
Public responsibilities were increasingly transferred to private contractors, municipal functions outsourced and essential services subjected to commercial considerations.
The consequences are visible in our communities. Wealth and property remain concentrated, unemployment persists, informal settlements struggle for basic services, and working-class households carry an increasing burden simply to secure the essentials of life.
The state has increasingly created opportunities for private accumulation while retreating from its responsibility to directly provide, build and transform. Neoliberalism is not an innocent bystander in this inequality. It is a major part of the economic framework that reproduces it. The interests of capital and private accumulation have repeatedly taken precedence over redistribution and the needs of the working class.
The real test: reducing inequality
The contradiction facing the new municipality is therefore fundamental. The demands of capital, property owners and commercial interests are not the same as the needs of workers, unemployed residents, informal settlement communities and low-income households.
Development that increases property values while surrounding communities remain without adequate services is not equitable development. Investment that generates profits without meaningful employment does not resolve unemployment. Outsourcing that enriches contractors while weakening public capacity does not necessarily improve municipal services.
JB Marks cannot continue measuring development through investment figures, property values and financial indicators while ignoring who benefits and who remains excluded.
Reducing inequality must become an urgent priority, not a promise for some distant future. Municipal budgets and infrastructure investment must prioritise communities with the greatest needs. Housing, land, water, electricity and sanitation must be addressed as essential public responsibilities.
Municipal procurement and infrastructure programmes must create meaningful employment, while public resources must be protected from corruption, waste and private enrichment. The municipality’s development must be measured by improvements in the lives of its poorest residents, not simply by the prosperity of its wealthiest neighbourhoods.
Inequality is also a threat to stability. A municipality cannot expect lasting social stability while large sections of its population remain unemployed, inadequately housed and excluded from meaningful economic opportunities. A coalition may command 43 votes in council, but that majority cannot manufacture social legitimacy.
The responsibility does not end with the election
Whatever coalition eventually emerges, residents must not become spectators in the negotiations or passive recipients of the decisions that follow. Communities must scrutinise coalition agreements, municipal budgets, tenders, contracts and development priorities.
They must question who benefits from public expenditure, organise around their needs and hold councillors accountable.
The formation of a new governing framework is not, in itself, political or economic transformation. Unless the neoliberal framework responsible for reproducing inequality is challenged, different political parties may simply continue administering the same economic system.
The real measure of the new administration will not be how many seats it controls, but whether it begins to dismantle the inequalities that have denied the working-class majority a dignified life.
The question residents must continue asking is simple: Who benefits from the municipality’s development, who pays for it, and whose needs come first?
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or editorial position of the Potchefstroom Herald.
