The sacking of Johannesburg Mayor Mpho Phalatse last week led to an unclear public debate about the suitability of the newly elected young mayor, Thapelo Amad.
This raises a long-standing question. What is the leadership of the mayor and what criteria do political parties use to determine the candidate for mayor in a vote of no confidence when the city government coalition collapses?
While political parties have made steps to advance the descriptive representation of youth and women in the leadership of the mayor, the question of the substantive representation of the mayor and serious concerns about the instability of governance in the city government are still gaining momentum.
Mayors, as recognizable public figures, are increasingly consumed by patronage politics. As Alex van den Heever points out. A highly experienced mayoral candidate is needed to politically manage a complex city such as Johannesburg, which has a huge budget of R77 billion. He suggests that Amad may be “the weakest and [most] unknown” the mayor of the city has never had because of inexperience in political management.
This may undermine the leadership’s strategic decision which is very important for the city’s bureaucratic administration to transform the city of Johannesburg. In fact, his election to the seat of mayor is considered another horse-trading agreement between the minority parties, which tends to deceive the newly elected mayor to exercise patronage through the distribution of resources for his benefit – which has nothing to do with competent leadership. and governance track record.
Indeed, Johannesburg struggles with a variety of complex socio-economic issues commonly found in urban settings. The city has had more than six mayors in three years while juggling broken infrastructure, ongoing service delivery protests in cities, rising crime rates, tensions between local residents and migrants, unresolved historical electricity debt, unsatisfied audit results satisfactorily, weak financial liquidity is indicated in the city’s R1. .8 billion deficit in 2022 and 7.1% operating revenue.
African cities are gradually being pushed to adopt modern forms of governance as urban socio-economic challenges require transformative leadership and qualitative representation.
However, their political and governance methods are very different from western urban local governments, which try to expand local leadership and representative democracy through directly elected mayors. They have insulated the city council legislatively from the removal of the mayor by motion of no confidence, which has created stability and relative autonomy in the political governance and administrative system of the mayor. But the stability and autonomy of mayors is something that South African city governments have been doing even before the rise of the hung council.
In South Africa, mayors have been at the center of involvement with partisan leadership contestation, power struggles, inter-party factions, political-administrative conflicts, patronage and subversion of professional values that tend to eliminate the mayor’s political management role and responsibilities. leaders in the city council.
Coalition formation over horse-trading political office holders, such as the mayor’s seat, has been a deal-breaker for gaining power in a hung council. Thus, political parties rarely consider how the mayor gains public legitimacy as a leader with power and authority that has an impact on the city’s jurisdiction.
This has made the proverbial kingmaking process ambiguous in the city government coalition, especially when the no-confidence motion is passed by the councilors behind the council chamber, where citizens cannot have a direct vote.
Phalatse’s alleged lack of leadership in the Soweto electricity protests was used to question his elitist leadership style and disconnect with poor communities, thus justifying his removal from office. Trying to counter this narrative, his public statements document his achievements during his tenure – which cannot be heard, thus missing the opportunity for public debate and consensus on how citizens can evaluate the mayor’s performance and hold him/her accountable.
Mayors can be considered strong or weak based on their experience, skills and competence. But formal relationships with councils and informal relationships with the public are essential. If the mayor has executive power and authority over the municipal budget, his power can be seen through his ability use this power to influence the appointment of the administration, to manage the executive and the administration and to set the tone for interaction with other councillors.
The mayor is in a strategic position with council members, staff and the public and therefore has the ability to pull the administrative and legislative wings for better interaction and improve communication between the council and the public.
Through social status and political position, the mayor is expected to promote the city’s vision and agenda by seeking support from the provincial and national governments and attracting investment from the private sector.. Other mayors can be seen as strong activists and more because of their close relationship with the community proactively and responsively in community conflicts, which may be good for the mayor’s public visibility or cause abrasive friction with the speaker responsible for public participation and petitions.
Leadership in city government is increasingly becoming a multifaceted activity, requiring leaders to interact with stakeholders from local businesses, communities and other local public bodies with competing demands, to address issues of concern, whether directly in the area of local government service . responsible.
Local leaders are surrounded by the complexities of urban governance, where boundaries are unclear and authority is dispersed among multiple actors. In addition, leading a multi-party government requires cohesive cooperation between various political parties, which can be met with resistance, tension and conflict.
Importantly, this leadership role depends on the city’s rule book, bureaucratic politics, executive power and the performance of the mayor’s authority in various municipalities in relation to the mayor’s freedom and autonomy.
Of course, the public should talk about the type of figure they want in the leadership of the city to ensure that the role is assigned to a suitable candidate with sufficient competence to exercise internal (institutional) and external public leadership.
Muting public opinion when examining the candidate for mayor – which is presented by political parties in the opposition and minority benches – raises questions about the consultative process for electing political officials and the limits of representative local democracy.
While the agenda for recruitment professionals, the appointment and removal of senior managers in local authorities is still incubating in the parliamentary committee room, the election and removal of city mayors (including members of the mayoral committee) should also be given greater public attention. a tumultuous coalition that collapsed before the end of his term.
Dr Thina Nzo leads the local government program at the Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI).
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position Mail & Guardians.