I generally don’t enjoy political debates during election silly season.
And yes, I recognise the hypocrisy in saying this as someone who has chaired and moderated many of them.
But too often, debates are political theatre masquerading as voter education. Candidates arrive armed with talking points, moderators try desperately to keep time, politicians shout over one another, and everyone leaves convinced that their person won.
I am not sure how many voters actually change their minds.
But Johannesburg is different this election.
The November 4 municipal election comes at a moment when the city’s problems are difficult to ignore. Water outages, electricity problems, potholes, refuse collection, infrastructure failures and serious questions about the city’s finances have become part of ordinary life.
At the same time, Johannesburg’s politics has become extraordinarily fragmented. The final candidate lists have 82 parties contesting the city. Recent polls do not even agree on whether the ANC or DA is ahead. What they do agree on is that no party is anywhere near the kind of dominance that once characterised Johannesburg politics.
In other words, Joburg voters have choices. Lots and lots and lots of choices.
Which makes the question much harder: what exactly are we choosing between?
That is why I appreciated the town hall debate The Debrief Network co-hosted with Radio Islam and ASRI.
Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat structured the discussion in a way that made it difficult for politicians to disappear into long soliloquies. Representatives from the ANC, ActionSA, EFF, RISE Mzansi, DA and Al Jama-ah were invited to explain not only what is wrong with Johannesburg, but what they would actually do about it. And that distinction matters.
We already know Joburg is broken in important ways. You don’t need a manifesto to tell you that. You need to drive down certain roads, wait for your water to return or try to decipher a municipal bill.
The more useful question is: how are you going to fix it?
For incumbent mayor Dada Morero, that was always going to be the difficult part of the debate. Incumbency is wonderful when things work. When they don’t, every question about the city eventually becomes a question about you.
The moment that surprised me most was Morero’s insistence that Johannesburg’s finances were not in a mess.
“The financial environment of the city is not in a mess... If it was in a mess, we would not have paid salaries this month, we would not be able to pay contractors, we would not be able to do anything... Yes, there are constraints, but the municipality has not collapsed.”
That is an important distinction from the mayor’s perspective: a municipality under severe pressure is not necessarily a municipality that has collapsed.
But it also raises an obvious question.
Only months ago, Johannesburg’s finances were being interrogated in Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The city has acknowledged serious cash-flow pressure, with Morero saying in July that Johannesburg had only 12 days of cash coverage, compared with a National Treasury recommendation of 32 days.
So I pushed back:
“Why then did we have that blowout in Scopa where the city’s finances were described as pathetic... ‘extremely alarming’, ‘a horror show’? These were what members of Parliament said about the city’s finances... What you are essentially saying to residents, that all is well, is disrespectful to residents.”
Morero’s argument was that there are constraints, but the municipality remains functional.
That exchange, more than any slogan, is what election debates should be about. Put the claim on the table. Put the evidence next to it. Let voters decide what they believe.
RISE Mzansi’s Lukhona Mnguni brought the energy of a newcomer arguing that Johannesburg needs a different generation of political leadership.
“Young people are not going to be inspired by someone talking about a future that they are not invested in, a future that they’re not going to live in... We need to provide young people with a leadership that resonates with them.”
The problem for newcomers, of course, is the inverse of the incumbent’s problem.
Morero has a record he has to defend.
New parties have promises they have never had to implement.
That is why the useful question for every challenger is not simply whether Johannesburg needs change. It is whether they can explain, in credible detail, what that change would look like.
ActionSA was challenged by a member of the public about its position on migration. Its representative defended the party’s distinction between immigration and illegal immigration:
“When ActionSA speaks about migration, we speak about illegal immigration... It is a crime. When I go to any other country in Africa without valid documents, I’m not supposed to be there. All ActionSA is saying is that if it is illegal, let us clamp down on it.”
The DA’s central pitch was much simpler: competence.
“When it comes to local government, there’s only one political party that has a proven track record of delivering when it comes to service delivery... When it comes to local government level, you can trust and count on DA councillors.”
That is the DA’s claim to voters. Like every other party’s claim, it deserves interrogation against its actual record and against what it proposes to do in Johannesburg.
What I enjoyed most about the debate was precisely this focus on how.
There is very little electoral value left in simply telling Johannesburg residents that Johannesburg has problems.
We know.
The harder task is convincing an exhausted electorate that voting for you will materially change anything.
And that may be the biggest challenge facing every party in this election.
I asked:
“What I’m worried about for Johannesburg is that there isn’t a sense of enthusing voters in the cause and effect that this vote can actually make things better... You’re trying to get a voter that was in primary school, a first-time voter, to vote in this election. Is that enough to enthuse this young base?”
I am still not sure.
I left the debate encouraged by the quality of the discussion, but still earnest about this city I call home.
Because beneath all the ideology, manifestos, coalition arithmetic and campaign slogans, my own wish list for Johannesburg is embarrassingly mundane.
Can my streetlights work?
Can my rubbish be collected?
Can my electricity bill arrive on time and actually be accurate?
Can I please have water at my workplace? Melville never has water.
And can I please, please, please take a walk in a park without being afraid of being killed?
None of this is revolutionary. That is precisely the point.
Watch the full debate and make up your own mind. And let us know: what is on your Johannesburg wish list?
Don’t forget to subscribe to The Debrief Network and share our journalism. It helps us do more of it.