The Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, commonly known as the Coalitions Bill, tabled in parliament last week, comes at a critical time. Coalition politics is no longer an exception in South Africa but has, over the years, become the norm in our political landscape.
The number of hung municipal councils where no political party received a majority, increased from 29 after the local government elections in 2000 to more than 80 after the 2021 elections.
More recently, in 2024, the outcome of the provincial and national elections showed that governing by coalition is no longer confined to municipalities.
The Coalitions Bill that was referred to the committee for processing, seeks to address the governance instability and disruption in service delivery and municipal operations issues often associated with coalition politics.
In the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, for example, mayors were voted out several times in one five-year term, highlighting the need for a solid framework for managing coalitions to avoid political wrangling and instability.
The Bill seeks to do that by providing the legislative framework that will guide the formation and management of coalition governments, as well as providing systems to minimise the challenges of coalitions in the local government sphere.
The portfolio committee enters the legislative process after a fruitful multiparty study tour to Denmark last year. Several lessons stand out that can add value to this process.
Political good faith
One important lesson for the committee was that a coalition government is sustained not simply by legal rules but by a political culture of trust and willingness to compromise.
Written coalition agreements are the norm in Denmark. In these agreements political parties set out their common policy objectives and commitments.
Since the agreements are not legally enforceable, they are accepted as being "as good as a handshake." If the handshake will not make the coalition work, no statute can, so the effectiveness of the agreements ultimately depends on trust.
No law can compel political parties to negotiate honestly, respect agreements or place the interests of communities above short-term political advantage.
In short — agreements are not a substitute for political good faith.
Once coalition agreements are made public, voters expect political leaders to honour them.
The Danish experience showed that public accountability creates its own discipline. Communities expect parties that have agreed to govern together to cooperate sufficiently to deliver services, even where political or ideological differences remain.
South Africa therefore needs more than coalition contracts. We need to develop a political culture in which parties understand that compromise is not a political weakness and that a coalition government cannot operate on a winner-take-all basis.
Safeguarding stability
The Danish approach to motions of no confidence was another issue of interest to the committee.
In Denmark, mayors are much less likely to be removed from office during their term due to shifts in political alliances unless there are exceptional grounds of infringement of the Constitution. The practice has created stability and continuity.
In South Africa, however, we have seen how hostile take-over bids by one coalition against another has resulted in changes in mayors and municipal executives. The rapid changes in leadership have implications for administrative continuity and decision-making on critical issues such as passing the budget and service delivery.
In processing the Bill, parliament will have to consider how to prevent municipalities from being unduly destabilised by political confrontations between councillors while safeguarding accountability. The Danish experience could be a useful starting point in this debate.
The Municipal Structures Act provides that municipal governments be constituted within 14 days after election results are declared.
Denmark, however, follows a different approach, where forming coalition governments can take up to four weeks in many municipalities. In bigger municipalities like Copenhagen, negotiations are often concluded within about two weeks.
In Danish municipalities, there are no strict deadlines but the lesson for South Africa is not that we should adopt a longer period. Instead, the lesson lies in the fact that successful coalition formation depends less on an arbitrary number of days than on whether parties have sufficient space and time to negotiate and reach sustainable agreements.
There must be enough room to negotiate durable agreements, so instead of timeframes, the focus is on the quality of the negotiations and the agreement reached. That is a matter for parliament to consider when processing the Bill.
Thresholds and kingmakers
Another lesson from the Danish experience relates to thresholds and kingmaker parties. The issue of thresholds and their implications in the South African context is contentious. In Denmark, a 2% threshold is applied nationally for representation in parliament.
The Danish experience is not based on a scientific determination of thresholds but rather on a trade-off between representation and stability. Low thresholds tend to make it easier for smaller parties to enter parliament, which tends to lead to more volatile parliaments.
High thresholds, on the other hand, may make it harder for small parties to gain representation but they also reduce the volatility of the party system.
Put differently, thresholds are an inherent feature of any electoral system in representative democracies that seek to balance the principles of proportionality and stability.
Parliament should take the matter of thresholds seriously and consider the difference between global acceptance of the electoral threshold and potential challenges of the executive threshold governing participation in an executive.
A culture of cooperation
This may be Denmark's most important lesson. Coalitions are not treated as an emergency arising when one party fails to secure 50% plus one. Instead, they are treated as an ordinary part of democratic politics, where parties disagree but still negotiate, compromise and cooperate where common ground exists.
For many decades, Denmark has been governed through minority coalitions, building within its political system a culture of negotiations, wherein parties are ready to make compromises and seek sufficient support to pass legislation, as opposed to an approach that targets and relies on a simple 50-plus-one majority.
As a consequence of the approach, in Denmark, 80% of proposed laws were passed with about 80% of parliamentary mandates. The Denmark experience places more emphasis on trust, political maturity and a commitment to democratic cooperation, even though institutional frameworks, electoral rules and political agreements remain important.
The lessons from the Danish study tour demonstrate that coalition stability cannot merely be legislated into existence. It must be carefully built through institutions, rules, accountability and a political culture of cooperation. South Africa must develop the same democratic habit.
As the committee begins determining the timetable for processing the Coalitions Bill, the lessons should guide our work. Our objective cannot simply be to legislate against coalition collapse. It must be to create conditions in which coalitions can govern effectively, implement policy, deliver services and remain accountable to voters.
Dr Zweli Mkhize is the chairperson of parliament's portfolio committee on cooperative governance and traditional affairs.