In my previous analysis, Pre-Electoral Alliances in South Africa: Lessons from the Past, Implications for the Future, I examined the proposed United for Change, (UFC) a merger between Build One South Africa (BOSA), Rise Mzansi, and GOOD Party, cautioning that South Africa’s history of short-lived political party mergers pointed to a likely breakdown. This perspective was grounded not in pessimism, but in precedent. Drawing on concepts such as historical institutionalism and path dependence, often used in political science, the argument was that recurring patterns of fragile alliances and political party mergers make similar outcomes not only possible but probable. The recent decision by these parties to abandon a unified electoral approach to contest the 2026 local government elections (LGEs) and instead contest independently appears to validate those concerns. This invites a deeper analysis into why political mergers, alliances and coalitions in South Africa so often struggle to endure. Since the announcement of the UFC there has been no visible, coordinated programme of action to signal a serious joint electoral project ahead of the 2026 LGEs. According to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity, ‘the three organisations did not sufficiently cohere to form a union’.
The absence of a joint coordinated programme of action should have raised early concern. By contrast, rival political parties have begun actively that the electorate in their confidence, rather than treating the 2026 contest as a distant event. The Democratic Alliance and ActionSA, among other parties have moved swiftly to consolidate their presence and intensify their electoral campaigns by identifying and promoting mayoral candidates, especially in the hotly contested, and strategically critical, metropolitan municipalities in Gauteng. This early positioning is not merely symbolic, it signals organisational readiness, voter targeting and clear political intent to govern.
The divergence is telling, while others are building electoral momentum, the UFC remained largely dormant lacking the coordination mechanisms, shared messaging and grassroots mobilisation that are essential for a credible alliance. In this context, the eventual decision to contest separately does not appear abrupt but rather the logical outcome of a merger that never fully transitioned from announcement to implementation.
However, this merger reflects both the opportunities and risks of adapting to South Africa’s coalition driven political landscape. While it can strengthen electoral competitiveness through consolidation, it also introduces challenges around identity, coherence and unity. The advantages presented by the merger, especially at the municipal level, signals a clear willingness for political cooperation and consolidation among small political parties ahead of the 2026 LGEs. It helps prevent vote splitting among similar constituencies, strengthens their bargaining power in councils and presents a more credible alternative to voters looking for new political leadership. At the same time, the arrangement risks creating mixed messaging. Contesting elections as a unified pact while maintaining separate party identities in various provincial and national legislatures can leave voters uncertain about what the alliance represent. This ambiguity can weaken trust and clarity of purpose. There is also the danger of brand dilution, as each party’s distinct identity and appeal may be blurred within a collective banner.
In the context of the 2026 local government elections, the decision of the three parties to contest under one banner points to concerns of a likelihood of vote spitting among similar constituencies which in turn increases the probability of hung councils across South African municipalities. The result is likely to have more fragmented council outcomes, complex coalition negotiations and a greater risk of political instability in local government, further entrenching the cycle of fragmentation and fragile alliances that has come to characterise South Africa’s municipal politics. Furthermore, this places more administrative burden on the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), which is responsible for administration of elections.
The IEC has already raised serious administrative concerns with regard to the proliferation of political parties in South Africa registering to contest elections. What could have been a modest step towards political party consolidation instead adds to the already crowded electoral field, intensifying vote fragmentation and complicating electoral administration. It does however, provide the electorate with a variety of vote choice. For the IEC, this is not just an administrative burden, it raises deeper questions about electoral efficiency and whether the current trajectory is producing a system that is increasingly difficult to manage both for voters and institutions.
While concerns about fragmentations are valid, it is important not to lose sight of the institutional strength and track record of the IEC. Since its establishment, the IEC has consistently delivered elections that are widely regarded as free, fair and credible, fulfilling its constitutional mandate under often complex and high pressure conditions. Its administrative capacity, from voter registration to ballot management and results verification, has remained a cornerstone of South Africa’s democratic stability. This credibility is precisely why its warning about the proliferation of political parties should be taken seriously.
What could have been a modest step towards political party consolidation instead adds to the already crowded electoral field, intensifying vote fragmentation and complicating electoral administration
Tweet
The IEC’s concerns are not a complaint about pluralism itself, but about the practical and systemic strain caused by an ever increasing number of political parties contesting elections, longer ballots, increased logistical demands and a more fragmented electoral outcome, which then complicates governance. In this sense, the IEC’s position reflects a deeper institutional insight that while democracy thrives on participation, excessive fragmentation without coordination can undermine the efficiency and coherence of the very system it seeks to sustain.
Contesting elections as a unified pact while maintaining separate party identities in various provincial and national legislatures can leave voters uncertain about what the alliance represent
Tweet
It is also imperative to balance the IEC’s concerns about party proliferation with a core democratic principle; having a lot of political parties is not inherently a problem, in fact it can be a sign of a healthy and maturing democracy. A wide range of political parties and civic movements reflects pluralism, giving the electorate a variety of political preferences, identities and interests. Many political science scholars and political commentators alike have opined on the importance of political parties as essential components in a just and democratic society, as they aggregate interests, increase political competition and provide the electorate with meaningful choices. In a diverse society like South Africa the emergence of new and smaller parties and civic/civil society movements signals political renewal, responsiveness and the opening up of space for voices that may feel excluded by more established parties.
The challenge, however, lies in the balance between representation and governability. While political party proliferation enhances inclusivity, it can also produce fragmentation that complicates decision-making, especially in proportional representation systems at local government level. The issue then, is not the existence of many political parties and civil movements, but the absence of effective coordination mechanisms among political parties, as demonstrated by the UFC merger. This is where the tension arises; democracy benefits from a multiplicity of political parties and civic movements, yet governance requires some degree of political cooperation, even more so in the era of coalition government. The UFC’s decision not to contest the 2026 LGEs as an electoral pact illustrates this dilemma clearly. Multiple parties representing similar ideals, values and constituencies exist but their inability to align strategically risks weakening their electoral impact if not well coordinated.
In conclusion, the decision by the UFC to contest the 2026 local government elections independently reflects the realities of a fragmented political landscape marked by weak pre-electoral and post electoral coordination between the political parties. The merger did present both a challenge and an opportunity, a challenge in terms of parties losing their identity and swallowing each other in the process of trying to consolidate votes and strengthen their collective electoral strength. However, it also offers an opportunity for parties to build distinct identities and perhaps lay the groundwork for more coherent and sustainable cooperation in the future, especially ahead the 2029 general elections in South Africa.
Boikanyo Nkwatle is an emerging researcher and PhD candidate in at the North West University, School of Government Studies, Mafikeng Campus.
