“South African voters are approaching the November local government elections amid differing polling estimates and uncertainty about turnout, making reliable public-opinion research particularly important. eNCA and MarkData are preparing to release results from a survey of 1,000 respondents in each of six major metropolitan areas, offering further insight into voting intentions, potential coalition partners and public perceptions of political leadership.”
South Africa’s Public Opinion Landscape Faces a Crucial Test Ahead of the 2026 Local Government Elections
South Africa is entering an important period of political debate as parties prepare for the local government elections scheduled for 4 November 2026. With competition for control of major metropolitan municipalities intensifying, public opinion polls are becoming an important source of information about voter intentions, political leadership, coalition preferences and confidence in government. However, differences between polling results also highlight the challenges of understanding what voters will ultimately decide when they enter polling stations.
On 9 October, eNCA announced that it would begin publishing results from its 2026 local government election polling project in partnership with MarkData. The first results, covering Nelson Mandela Bay and Ekurhuleni, are scheduled for release on Sunday, 11 October. Subsequent releases are planned for eThekwini and Tshwane on 18 October, Johannesburg and Cape Town on 25 October, followed by wider national political findings on 1 November.
The announcement places public opinion at the centre of South Africa’s political conversation. Rather than relying exclusively on party statements, campaign events or political commentary, voters and analysts will have additional survey evidence to examine how residents perceive the parties competing to govern their municipalities.
Why public opinion matters in South African politics
Public opinion helps explain how citizens evaluate political leadership, government performance and the policies that affect their daily lives. In local government, these concerns often involve electricity, water, sanitation, refuse collection, roads, public transport, housing and municipal financial management.
National political debates remain influential, but municipal elections can be shaped by residents’ direct experiences of local services. A voter may support a party nationally while expressing dissatisfaction with the performance of a particular municipality. Similarly, residents may distinguish between a party’s national leadership and the individuals responsible for running their city.
These distinctions make local election polling particularly valuable. Survey findings can help identify which issues matter to residents and whether voters associate particular parties with improvements or shortcomings in municipal administration.
Nevertheless, a poll is not an election result. It records responses from a sample of people at a particular time. Public attitudes can change as campaigns develop, new information emerges and political parties announce their proposals.
Consequently, polling should be treated as evidence about public sentiment rather than a definitive statement about which party will control a municipality.
New polling aims to measure metropolitan voter preferences
According to eNCA’s announcement, its research project surveyed approximately 1,000 carefully selected respondents in each of the six largest metropolitan areas: Johannesburg, Tshwane, Nelson Mandela Bay, Ekurhuleni, eThekwini and Cape Town. The survey explored voting intentions, preferred and rejected coalition partners, mayoral preferences and perceptions of corruption among political parties.
These questions are significant because South Africa’s municipal political environment increasingly requires parties to consider cooperation with other political organisations when seeking to establish governing administrations.
Coalition arrangements can influence budgets, executive appointments, policy priorities and the stability of municipal governments. Therefore, understanding which partnerships voters would welcome or oppose may provide useful context for interpreting election campaigns.
However, coalition preferences must be interpreted carefully. Saying that a voter would accept two parties working together does not necessarily mean that the voter supports both organisations equally. Likewise, rejecting a proposed coalition does not automatically reveal which alternative arrangement the respondent would prefer.
The distinction between party support and coalition acceptability is essential. A survey that measures both can offer a more detailed picture of political attitudes than one that asks only which party a respondent intends to support.
Why different polls can produce different findings
Recent reporting has highlighted substantial differences between surveys measuring voting intentions in Johannesburg.
A Daily Maverick analysis published on 7 October compared estimates from several polls. It reported that a News24/SABI survey placed the Democratic Alliance at more than 29% and the African National Congress at approximately 23% in Johannesburg. A Social Research Foundation/Common Sense Media poll placed the DA at 42% and the ANC at 19%, while Ipsos reported figures of 31% for the ANC and 29% for the DA.
These estimates should not be treated as interchangeable measurements. They came from different surveys, and their findings need to be evaluated in relation to their fieldwork dates, sampling approaches, questions and assumptions about turnout.
News24’s published methodology explains that its Elections Poll ’26 project used a survey conducted by the SABI Strategy Group among 5,001 registered voters between 25 August and 17 September 2026. The national sample comprised 1,000 respondents, with additional samples for metropolitan areas. The project also applied weighting and a model intended to account for the likelihood of voting.
Differences in sampling and turnout assumptions can influence estimates, particularly when an election is close or when voters are still deciding whether to participate.
A responsible reading of public opinion therefore requires more than selecting the most striking percentage. Journalists and readers should examine how a survey was conducted, who participated, what question was asked and how uncertainty was reported.
Turnout remains a central question
Public support for a political party and actual participation in an election are two different things.
Some people who express a preference in a survey may not vote on election day. Others who are undecided when interviewed may eventually select a party. The age, location, motivation and registration status of people who turn out can also influence the final result.
Daily Maverick’s October analysis identified turnout as an important consideration in interpreting the different polling estimates ahead of the November elections. It also discussed the possible relevance of election timing and seasonal factors to participation.
For political parties, this creates a practical challenge. Campaigns must persuade supporters not only that their preferred organisation represents their interests but also that voting is worthwhile.
For election researchers, it means that estimates of voting intention should be distinguished from estimates of actual participation. Any turnout model depends on assumptions that may not perfectly capture behaviour on election day.
Residents’ experiences with municipal services, confidence in political institutions and perceptions of whether elections can produce meaningful change may all form part of the broader debate about participation. These factors should be investigated through reliable evidence rather than assumed to affect every community in the same way.
Leadership and public confidence
Public opinion research also offers insight into how citizens evaluate political leaders.
An Eyewitness News report published on 6 October discussed a News24/SABI poll in which businessman Patrice Motsepe received more favourable assessments than unfavourable ones among the figures tested. The report also noted that Motsepe had repeatedly denied plans to enter electoral politics or establish a political party.
The finding illustrates an important distinction between public perceptions of an individual and actual political support for an organisation. A person may be viewed favourably without contesting an election, leading a party or presenting a programme of government.
Political analyst Steven Friedman, quoted in the report, cautioned against interpreting favourable polling as proof of electoral support. He also discussed the importance of politicians listening seriously to the public and taking voters’ concerns into account.
This broader question of political trust is relevant to municipal elections. Residents may judge leaders according to their accessibility, responsiveness, integrity and ability to explain decisions. Yet public perceptions do not always correspond directly with measurable administrative performance. Both public feedback and verifiable service-delivery records are needed to understand the relationship.
Coalition government and the public mood
Research published by The Common Sense and the Social Research Foundation on 29 September examined attitudes towards South Africa’s Government of National Unity.
According to its report, the proportion of likely voters who viewed the ANC favourably declined across five rounds of polling, from 41% to 30%, while the share saying that the Government of National Unity was performing well remained within a relatively narrow range around half of respondents.
These findings suggest that respondents can assess a coalition arrangement differently from an individual party within it. Such attitudes are relevant to municipal politics, where cooperation between parties may be necessary to form administrations.
However, national perceptions of the Government of National Unity should not automatically be applied to municipal coalitions. Local political arrangements differ, and residents may assess them according to the circumstances of their own communities.
The upcoming metropolitan polls may help clarify how voters approach questions of leadership and cooperation in individual cities. Their significance will depend on the survey evidence actually released, including its methodology and the limits of what it can establish.
Responsible reporting and the limits of polling
As political parties compete for attention, survey figures can become campaign material. Selective quotations, dramatic headlines and comparisons between incompatible polls may encourage readers to draw conclusions that the underlying evidence does not support.
News organisations should clearly identify the organisation that commissioned or conducted each survey, the date of fieldwork, the population sampled and the relevant margin of error where available. They should also distinguish respondents’ stated preferences from projections and confirmed election results.
Readers can apply similar checks when encountering polling claims on social media. The original report and methodology are generally more informative than an isolated graphic or percentage shared without context.
Public opinion also changes over time. A poll conducted in August or September cannot automatically be described as a measurement of sentiment on 10 October. Its findings remain evidence about the period surveyed, not a direct account of what every voter thinks today.
The scheduled eNCA-MarkData releases provide an opportunity to examine public opinion across six metropolitan areas in greater detail. The initial results for Nelson Mandela Bay and Ekurhuleni are expected on 11 October, followed by additional metropolitan findings over the next two weeks.
The central questions concern voting intentions, coalition preferences, leadership choices and how residents evaluate political parties. Comparing these results with other surveys may help explain where researchers agree, where they differ and which questions remain unresolved.
Ultimately, the importance of public opinion research extends beyond identifying party preferences. It can help journalists, civic organisations, researchers and voters examine the relationship between political promises, public expectations and government accountability.
As South Africa approaches the 4 November local government elections, reliable polling will be most useful when it encourages informed discussion rather than certainty unsupported by evidence. Voters’ views are diverse, surveys have limitations, and the final results will be determined by the votes actually cast.
For now, the forthcoming metropolitan polling releases represent a significant opportunity to understand the public mood more carefully. Their value will depend not only on the numbers announced but also on transparent methods, balanced reporting and the willingness to recognise what the available evidence can—and cannot—tell the country.
