LGE 2026 Manifestos: No party won outright majority in Johannesburg, Tshwane or Ekurhuleni. Do the promises match what the likely coalition partners want?

The 2026 local elections in short #

The vote. On Wednesday 4 November 2026, 29.2 million registered voters could choose representatives for 257 municipalities, which together hold 10,526 council seats: eight metropolitan municipalities (metros), 44 district municipalities and 205 local municipalities (SAnews, election-day report). The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) publishes the results on its dashboard.

How many parties. 732 parties were registered and 546 qualified to contest, and 136,790 candidates stood for the 10,526 seats (IEC figures, as stated in Ukweli's Folios 07 and 22).

What a metro is. A metro is one of the country's eight largest cities, governed by its own council. Johannesburg, Tshwane (the city around Pretoria) and Ekurhuleni (the metro east of Johannesburg) sit side by side in Gauteng, the province the three share. The other five are Cape Town, eThekwini (Durban), Nelson Mandela Bay (Gqeberha), Buffalo City (East London) and Mangaung (Bloemfontein).

What a hung council is. A council is hung when no party holds more than half of election votes. The council elects the metro's mayor by a vote of its councillors, so a party that cannot reach more than half needs partners. Parties that agree to govern together form a coalition.

What a council does. The Constitution lists the matters a municipality may run. Ukweli's table of them has 38 matters, 15 from Schedule 4 and 23 from Schedule 5 (Folios 08 and 22). Folio 08, Whose power is it?, sets out who decides what sits within a council's powers.

What a manifesto is. A manifesto is a party's published list of promises, so voters can read them and decide.

Votes, not seats. The shares in this folio are shares of the vote as the IEC dashboard reports them, not shares of council seats. Seats follow votes but are not the same figure.

What Ukweli did #

Ukweli has analysed 15 manifestos for the 2026 local elections. It found 2,686 promises and quoted each in the party's own words, with its page. An AI model does the reading, and a finding is published only when repeated readings agree. Where a sentence is too short or vague to test, or Ukweli's checks did not settle it, the card says "Could not be assessed by Ukweli". That label is about the reading, not about the party. Another label, "Mixes different powers", marks a promise that spans more than one power. Of the 2,686 promises, 2,046 could be assessed, 263 mix different powers and 377 could not be assessed (the same split as Folio 22; 2,046 re-derived from the ledger, the other two as published).

This folio does a separate job on the same promises. It does not use Ukweli's verdicts. It asks, for six parties, whether each promise commits the party to something that matches one of the DA's stated priorities or one of ActionSA's stated conditions, and counts the ones that do. Six parties because they are the ones in the top five in at least one of the three metros. Together they made 1,421 promises: ActionSA 357, ANC 331, DA 250, EFF 294, IFP 68 and FF Plus 121.

The 15 manifestos

Promise counts are the numbers on Ukweli's pages, re-derived from its ledger on 7 Nov 2026 (total 2,686). As a reminder, this folio looks only at the Gauteng metros, but these counts are for each party's whole manifesto, not only its Gauteng promises. "In this folio" means the party is in the top five by votes in at least one of the three metros. A manifesto is in Ukweli's set when Ukweli can obtain it from the party's own publication; that is a rule about documents, never a judgement about a party. Logos are not yet added to this draft. When they are, the standard Ukweli note goes with them: "Party logos belong to the parties and are shown for identification only. Ukweli is not affiliated with any party." Party names: ACDP is the African Christian Democratic Party; AMM the Afrika Mayibuye Movement; ANC the African National Congress; DA the Democratic Alliance; EFF the Economic Freedom Fighters; FF Plus the Freedom Front Plus; ICM the Independent Citizens Movement; IFP the Inkatha Freedom Party; NCC the National Coloured Congress; SACP the South African Communist Party; UDM the United Democratic Movement. ActionSA and GOOD are the full names. BOSA and Al Jama-ah are written as each party writes them.

The SACP did not publish a standalone manifesto document that Ukweli found; its manifesto text appears in its newsletter, Umsebenzi Online (August 2026 issue), on pp. 7 to 11, and that is the text Ukweli read. Party logos belong to the parties and are shown for identification only. Ukweli is not affiliated with any party.

What Ukweli does not do #

• It does not score, grade or endorse any party, and does not say who should govern.
• It does not predict who will form a coalition.
• Ukweli's other folios do not rank parties. This one shows orders (A, B and C, in Tests 3 and 4) because Ukweli chose to lift that rule for this analysis. Each order is by share of a party's own promises, is labelled as not a prediction, and is not a ranking of merit.
• It does not judge whether a party will keep a promise.
• It does not give a score or a total for a party, and a promise outside council powers is not treated as false.
• It does not count a promise just because it mentions a topic. A promise counts only if its own wording commits the party to an action on the matter.

Where the count stands #

Nationally, 99% of votes were counted at the last read (IEC dashboard, 7 Nov 2026, 17:30 SAST). Six of the seven hung metros are complete or nearly so (counts read 17:29 to 17:30 SAST on 7 Nov 2026). Nelson Mandela Bay and Buffalo City are at 100%. Mangaung, Tshwane and Johannesburg are at 99%, and Ekurhuleni is at 98%. eThekwini is at 91%, so it will still move, and the other five will move a little.

That movement cannot change the picture. Even if one party took every uncounted vote, the best-placed party in each of the seven would still fall short of half: Johannesburg's DA would end at about 36%, eThekwini's MKP at about 45%. This is arithmetic on the IEC's percentage of votes counted; it is not a forecast.

IEC results dashboard, read 17:29 to 17:30 SAST on 7 Nov 2026. The measure is votes, not seats. Some well-supported parties have no analysed manifesto and are not listed: MKP, which leads eThekwini on 39.76%, and PA. The broadcast "LGE2026 | Hung councils loom for 7 of 8 metros" is background; where it differs from the dashboard, the dashboard governs.

How this folio is laid out #

First, where the count stands in the seven hung metros. Then the three Gauteng metros and what the DA has said about talks. Then the coalitions of 2021, which set the background. Then a labelled assumption, the priorities and conditions the DA and ActionSA have named, and four tests:

• Test 1. Do the DA's priorities and ActionSA's conditions match each other?
• Test 2. Does each of the two parties' own manifesto match its own priorities or conditions?
• Test 3. How do the other leading parties' manifestos compare with the DA's three priorities?
• Test 4. How do they compare with ActionSA's three conditions?

Everything is a count of promises and a share of the party's own manifesto. The reader concludes.

Gauteng: the DA leads all three #

By votes the DA is first in Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni, but in none of them does it have more than half of the votes. ActionSA is second in Tshwane, ahead of the ANC, and third in the other two.

Same source and read time as above (Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni read 17:29 to 17:30 SAST). Closest margin for the candidate sets: Johannesburg's fifth place. IFP (2.39%) is 0.55 points ahead of FF Plus (1.84%) with 1% uncounted; if FF Plus overtakes, the Johannesburg set changes. In Tshwane the fifth party (EFF, 5.78%) is 4.6 points ahead of the next analysed party (SACP, 1.19%); in Ekurhuleni the fifth (FF Plus, 5.01%) is 3.9 points ahead of the next (IFP, 1.16%).

Because in none of the three Gauteng metros does the DA, though it leads, have 50% plus 1 votes, the party indicated that it has already started laying the ground for coalition talks. On 6 November the DA said it has contacted all parties to start discussions on stable governments, will not negotiate through the media and will publish coalition agreements once concluded (DA media statement). Its leader, Geordin Hill-Lewis, said the DA is in talks with several parties, including the ANC (Daily Maverick, 6 Nov). In Johannesburg, the DA's mayoral candidate Helen Zille said she prefers a two-party coalition with ActionSA or the ANC, depending on the final results (Sowetan, 7 Nov). Also on 7 November, a DA national spokesperson told SABC News that the EFF and the MK party are the DA's red lines and that the other parties are "on the board". The spokesperson said there is no red line on the mayoral chain, though the largest party should reasonably expect it (SABC News video, from 4:05).

Sourcing, in plain terms: the DA's own statement is national and names no metro. No DA statement specific to Tshwane or Ekurhuleni talks was found in the pages opened (the DA site and the news reports opened for each metro; three IOL pages did not load). Zille told The Citizen in April 2026, before the vote, that she would not work with the ANC, EFF or MK; the two positions are reported side by side and not reconciled here.

This is not the first coalition #

All three metros have been governed by coalitions since 2021, and none of them has been stable.

2021 vote shares are the IEC's final figures. The numbers of parties come from Wikipedia, not the IEC: the IEC's 2021 table lists 12 named parties plus an "Other" group holding 6, 3 and 4 seats, which fits one seat each, but the official party count has not been confirmed from the IEC's downloads. Sources for the arrangements: Daily Maverick (16 Dec 2021), The Citizen (22 Feb 2022), ACCORD Coalitions Tracker, Polity (Dec 2021). Two vote counts conflict across sources, so none is quoted.

The assumption this folio tests #

Ukweli's assumption, written as one. Not a finding.

One lesson from those coalitions may be that the parties with the biggest votes would rather deal with each other than with many small parties. The Government of National Unity may shape which parties come together, especially the DA and the ANC. If that fails, ActionSA is the DA's next choice. On this reading smaller parties will not become a large part of the governments.

But manifestos made promises. The question is whether those promises become the template for choosing who to talk to, between the DA and ActionSA - the two parties who have stated their priorities or conditions for the coalition talks. This folio tests that.

What reports say about earlier coalitions, which is not a test of the assumption: smaller-party mayors held office in Johannesburg (Al Jama-ah) and Ekurhuleni (the AIC's single councillor), backed by the ANC and EFF; in Tshwane in 2024 ActionSA left a DA-led coalition and joined the ANC and EFF to remove the DA mayor (Daily Maverick, Sep 2024).

What the votes allow: the DA with the ANC, or with ActionSA #

Before testing the manifestos, here is the arithmetic of the assumption. In each of the three Metros, would the DA and one partner together reach 50% plus 1 of the votes? The table adds the two parties' shares from the IEC dashboard (read 17:29 to 17:30 SAST on 7 Nov 2026).

How to read it. "Against 50%" is the combined share minus 50 points: plus means over the line, minus means short of it. "Range once all votes are in" is arithmetic on the share of votes still to be counted: the low end if none of them go to the pair, the high end if all of them do. It is not a forecast. "Secure" means the low end is above 50%. "Not yet decided" means the pair is, or could be, on either side of 50%. These are shares of votes, not of council seats, and the folio has not tested how votes convert to seats. Pairs of two are the only combinations shown; a third party can add to either. For example, in Ekurhuleni the EFF (6.45%) or FF Plus (5.01%) would lift the DA and ActionSA over 50% on current counts.

What the two parties say they want #

SABC News describes ActionSA as holding king-maker status in the three metros. ActionSA says it will negotiate with any party, with three conditions that are, in its leader's words, non-negotiable. The DA has indicated three priorities and is expected to use them as a guide when choosing partners.

Test 1. Do the DA's priorities and ActionSA's conditions match? #

Before looking at any manifesto, we set the DA's priorities and ActionSA's conditions side by side. All nine pairings were judged from the quoted words only, by two readers working separately. They agreed on every pairing and classed two as partial; Ukweli ruled those two as similar.

Corruption and the people's purse meet on public money lost to corruption. ActionSA's "all the areas, regardless of their post codes" sits inside the DA's "delivery of services". Differences stay on the record: ActionSA ranks corruption first and calls it non-negotiable, while the DA lists the purse first of three without ranking words; ActionSA adds equal reach to every area, which the DA's wording does not. The immigration condition shares no matter with any DA priority; ActionSA ties it to co-governing and names Home Affairs, Labour and police.

The DA wording is spoken, not written. ActionSA's comes from one interview with its leader. A later written statement from either party could change a class.

Test 2. Does each party's manifesto match its own priorities or conditions? #

Each of the two parties is held against its own words. Promises can count under more than one condition.

Tests 3 and 4. How do the likely partners compare? #

Now the other parties in each metro's top five. Test 3 holds them against the DA's three priorities; Test 4 holds them against ActionSA's three conditions. Choose a metro and a test.

Three ways to order the parties #

"Matches the priorities or conditions" can mean different things, so there are three orderings. The reference party is left out of the numbering. Equal results share a position. Order by share of own promises, not a prediction.

Over to the reader #

The folio stops here. The counts show how much of each party's manifesto speaks to the priorities and conditions the two likely lead partners have named. Whether that is the template for choosing partners is for the reader to judge.

Method. A promise counts only if its own wording commits the party to an action on the matter; mentions and goals are not counted. Each promise was read in full by two independent readers, matched by promise id, with disagreements settled from the wording. The counting rules were written and fixed before any promise was read. Tests 3 and 4 use the counts in Test 2 and the FF Plus run (ActionSA conditions 8, 1, 0; DA priorities 17, 5, 15 of 121). Votes are the IEC dashboard's at the read time shown.