How to protect public service from unstable coalitions

Coalitions in South Africa have shown to be unstable over time, in part because the discussions usually centre on exchanging positions rather than developing and implementing policies, a set of guiding principles, values and achievable goals. 

Since 1994 we have been accustomed to a one party majority but, over the past 10 years or so the country has seen the ANC dwindle, forcing it to work with other political parties to form a government at the local level. Then, in the May 2024 general elections the majority party fell below 50% nationally and below 40% at provincial level. 

Instability and early council term termination, which frequently leads to poor governance, are not the only problems. Other issues with local government include poor service delivery, battles over passing budgets, little continuation of administrative work as a result of administration or council changes, which affects the day-to-day operations of municipalities. 

But the greatest obstacle coalitions face is the political control and politicisation of important officials in all areas of the government. While it is beneficial for bureaucracy to uphold party loyalty and carry out political mandates, it is equally important for these political players to abstain from politics when it comes to governmental operations.  

Any branch of government’s functions are typically greatly harmed by instability in the coalition government. This covers the selection of management and senior officials, the adoption of budgets, and the implementation and the adoption of local government policies and by-laws. People are directly affected by political meddling and bad governance.

Effects of bureaucracy on coalitions

Bureaucratic institutions have a significant effect on the dynamics of coalitions and how well they can carry out policy implementation. These organisations, which consist of government departments, agencies and administrative bodies, are in charge of carrying out regulations, enforcing laws and providing services. Their influence on coalitions is complex, affecting governance in general, as well as policy implementation. 

First and foremost, the bureaucratic infrastructure should maintain administrative continuity by offering stability in the face of shifting political alliances. Regardless of the political environment, they should continue to provide vital functions and services.

The form of coalition administrations can, however, have a big effect on how successful bureaucratic institutions are. When coalitions are unstable or dispersed, they may find it difficult to carry out policies as intended. Inconsistent or ambiguous policy directions might result from coalitions that struggle to come to an agreement or that undergo repeated leadership turnover. Delays, inefficiencies, and even a lack of coherence in the provision of public services can arise from this. 

Furthermore, the internal dynamics of coalitions can be affected by bureaucratic structures. Bureaucrats can act as gatekeepers or facilitators of policy implementation, with the power to affect coalition partners’ capacity to accomplish their goals. Their institutional and professional experience is crucial for turning political pledges into policies that can really be implemented. On the other hand, conflict and difficulties in accomplishing the coalition’s policy agenda may arise if the objectives of the bureaucratic entities do not align with those of the bureaucrats.

Another dimension of this interaction is the potential for bureaucratic inertia. Bureaucracies are often characterised by established procedures and a resistance to rapid change. When coalitions attempt to implement new or controversial policies, bureaucratic resistance or slow adaptation can hinder the effective execution of these policies. This inertia can be particularly problematic in coalitions where partners have divergent priorities, because the bureaucracy may struggle to balance these conflicting interests. 

Additionally, the role of bureaucratic institutions in the appointment and management of senior officials can affect coalition dynamics. In South Africa, political appointees in key bureaucratic positions can influence how policies are implemented and can be seen as either allies or obstacles to coalition goals. The appointment process, often influenced by political considerations, can lead to a situation where bureaucratic support is not uniformly aligned with the coalition’s priorities, affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of governance.

The public service in South Africa has been severely impacted by unstable coalitions, which have made development more difficult and exacerbated already-existing issues. Unstable coalitions frequently lead to deadlock because of competing party objectives and ongoing talks that make it difficult to take decisive action. Administrative inefficiencies result from this political instability because council priorities change with every new coalition agreement or breakup. 

For example, disagreements between coalition members over financial allocations or project scopes can cause vital infrastructure projects to be postponed or cancelled completely. Furthermore, the regular departure of municipal officials causes a disruption in the continuity of public service delivery, which results in uneven policy implementation and diminished efficacy in meeting local demands. This lack of consistency affects services like waste management, water supply, and road repair since long-term planning and execution become increasingly difficult. This has been a case for the City of Johannesburg where service delivery has declined significantly because of the mayoral musical chairs. 

Ways to protect the public service under unstable coalitions

1. Develop a coalition framework. There is a need to develop realistic regulations and a framework that will guide political party leaders in structuring and managing coalitions. The latest Municipal Structures Amendment Bill is a good start that needs to be refined and further developed with other policies. 
2. Reflect the agreement in writing. Political parties in South Africa often want to have the power to govern in a coalition but without one single ideology or legislative configuration. With the formation of the government of national unity, a statement of intent was signed. There is a need for political parties forming a coalition government to coalesce over issues they all agree on. This will make policy development and implementation for critical issues such as unemployment, poverty, crime and rising inflation much simpler. This will also make political parties commit to one another to implement any legislature or policies as a collective unit. 
3. Collective redefinition of South Africa’s political centre and culture to prioritise pragmatic goals and policy orientation. The final negotiation should be the assignment of jobs, and it should preserve sufficient power sharing and distribution.
4. Understand the role of the national office of a political party in coalitions. We often cannot distinguish leadership roles between the public service and political parties. For the public service to remain independent, there is a need for bureaucrats to have little or no hiring and firing power in top management of political leaders in government. 
5. Encourage team building among political actors in coalition agreements. Meeting regularly in any form, including social gatherings, where leaders can discuss and exchange ideas is important in the stability of any coalition. Public service work is prioritised, fresh ideas are aired and informal conversations take place. This promotes unity, collective agreements and conflict resolution to ensure important issues are at the forefront. 

The volatility that arises from coalitions breaking up and realigning can hinder efforts to address urgent development and economic issues and further threaten strategic vision. It is necessary to intervene because the unstable coalition politics prevalent in local governments has compromised the effectiveness of public service, making it more difficult for municipalities to deliver consistent, quality services and effectively meet the needs of the people.
Naledi Ngqambela is a research coordinator and Khanya Burns-Ncamashe is a programme manager at Rivonia Circle.