Anita Nkonki|Published
The 2026 local government elections will be held on November 4.
As Johannesburg navigates shifting coalition politics, ward councillors say residents are being heard through public participation processes, but turning their concerns into better services remains a challenge.
Residents can attend ward meetings, submit complaints and participate in municipal budget consultations. However, when the same problems persist, a fundamental question emerges: how much influence do they really have over the decisions that shape their communities?
For three Johannesburg ward councillors, the answer lies in the gap between being heard and seeing action, with the limits of their own authority and the city’s administrative processes often determining whether residents’ concerns translate into tangible improvements.
Juwairiya Kaldine, Marilyne Smouse and Dwain Ponsonby, who represent communities including Eldorado Park and Ward 82, say public participation remains important, but its value ultimately depends on whether residents can see the results of their involvement.
Residents want action, not just opportunities to speak
Kaldine said local government must do more than provide residents with opportunities to voice their frustrations.
“There is a difference between allowing residents to voice their concerns and ensuring that those concerns translate into action. Residents can identify priorities, participate in public meetings and influence development plans, but the real measure of participation is whether their concerns are addressed,” she said.
In Eldorado Park, she said, residents want reliable services, safer public spaces, opportunities for young people and visible development.
“My responsibility is to continue pushing for these priorities and ensuring that our community is not forgotten in the city’s decision-making processes.”
Coalition politics can affect service delivery
The question of who holds power becomes particularly important in a council shaped by changing political alliances, where shifts in leadership can affect priorities, decision-making and the continuity of municipal programmes.
Kaldine said coalition politics could create instability when parties focused more on negotiations and political positions than on residents’ needs.
“Residents do not choose their circumstances according to which party is in government. They still need their refuse collected, infrastructure maintained, roads repaired, and communities developed.”
She argued that political differences should not become an excuse for poor service delivery, adding that leadership should be measured by its impact on people’s lives rather than simply by who occupies political office.
Smouse echoed these concerns, warning that political changes could delay decisions, shift priorities and make accountability less clear.
“Residents do not distinguish between political disagreements and municipal responsibilities when they are experiencing service delivery problems,” she said.
“Johannesburg needs consistent planning, clear lines of accountability and continuity in approved projects and service delivery programmes, regardless of which political parties govern the City.”
Councillors say municipal processes delay resolutions
Beyond political negotiations, the councillors’ accounts point to another complication: the distance between the elected representative whom residents approach and the officials and departments responsible for implementing decisions.
Smouse said one of the biggest challenges was the gap between reporting a problem and achieving a resolution.
“A councillor may report an issue, obtain a reference number, follow up with the relevant department and raise the matter repeatedly, yet residents may continue to experience the same problem.”
She said councillors did not directly control every departmental budget or operational team, meaning their ability to secure a resolution often depended on the responsible departments and municipal entities.
Ponsonby, also representing Eldorado Park, said the same distinction weakened residents’ influence over municipal decisions.
“Raising an issue does not automatically secure a budget or a response from the responsible department. Residents’ influence is weakened when their concerns are recorded, but they receive no clear explanation of what will happen next,” he said.
For Ponsonby, accountability must go beyond logging complaints and escalating them through municipal structures.
“We need named officials responsible for follow-up, clear timeframes and honest progress reports. Where delays relate to funding, capacity or procurement, residents deserve an explanation and a recovery plan. Repeated failure to act must trigger appropriate accountability.”
Residents need feedback on municipal priorities
The councillors also questioned whether public participation processes give communities sufficient insight into how municipal priorities are determined.
Although residents can participate through ward committees, public meetings and consultations on the Integrated Development Plan and municipal budget, Smouse said the process should not end when submissions are received.
“Residents need to know whether their concerns have been considered, which projects have been prioritised, what funding has been allocated and when implementation is expected,” she said.
She called for greater transparency around ward-level projects, budgets and progress reports, allowing residents to track commitments without relying solely on repeated follow-ups.
Ponsonby said participation should also be accessible to working residents, with both digital and in-person opportunities to engage with the city.
Kaldine, meanwhile, argued that communities needed honest explanations when their requests could not be implemented immediately, rather than being left without feedback.
“Residents must not only be heard; they must be able to see the impact of their participation,” she said.