It is, however, practically impossible for everyone to rule; hence Stephen Holmes describes democracy as ‘never simply the rule of the people but always the rule of the people within certain predetermined channels, according to certain prearranged procedures’.

Democracy, therefore, manifests in three forms: representative, participatory, and direct democracy. A vibrant constitutional state has elements of all three forms, yet the application of direct democracy has not been explored at the local level in democratic South Africa. The preference for representative and participatory democracy in municipalities, and in South Africa broadly, has not been without its problems, as voter disengagement, weak accountability, corruption, and broken election promises signal democratic dissatisfaction as we head towards the 2026 local government elections. Would allowing residents to participate directly in policy and law-making affect differences in democratic satisfaction at the local level?

Direct democracy and the constitutional framework

Direct democracy is a system where citizens make decisions personally rather than through elected representatives. This is often through referenda, public voting or citizen assemblies. Historically, it is regarded as the ‘purest’ form of democracy; however, the Constitution has left little room for it, preferring instead elected legislatures who rule on behalf of citizens. In terms of section 84(g) and section 127(f) of the Constitution, the President and premiers are explicitly empowered to call a referendum in accordance with national legislation. Whilst a similar provision does not exist for municipal councils, sections such as section 19 (the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket and present petitions), section 152(1)(e) (local government has an objective to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government) and section 195(1)(e) (the public must be encouraged to participate in policy-making) provide for residents to act directly in influencing decisions in their municipalities.

Deficiencies of representative democracy

Municipal governance currently combines representative and participatory democracy but heavy reliance is placed on the former. Under the former, residents elect ward councillors, proportional representation councillors and municipal councils. These representatives make municipal decisions. Under the latter, residents participate in ward committees, Integrated Development Planning, stakeholder, and municipal budgeting consultations. Whilst residents influence decisions, the municipality can choose not to follow their input.

Where reliance is placed solely on representative democracy, many communities only participate in municipal affairs during elections, thus limiting meaningful engagement between elections. Furthermore, communities often feel councillors become inaccessible after elections, which weakens the accountability expected from representatives. Sole reliance on representative democracy also results in councillors who may prioritise political party, factional, and personal interests rather than community needs. The effect of this is a decline in public trust, a decline in electoral turnout, and public dissatisfaction as residents feel disconnected from municipal decision-making.

Could direct democracy work?

The Constitution establishes municipalities as representative democratic institutions that incorporate participatory democratic mechanisms to ensure community involvement in decision-making. Although in terms of the Constitution direct democracy is not explicitly provided for municipalities, employing aspects of direct democracy would be feasible; however, only to a limited extent. As mentioned above, there are sections in the Constitution that provide for residents to act directly in influencing decisions in their municipalities. Thus, it can be argued that sections 19, 152(1)(e) and 195(1)(e) of the Constitution balance the dominance of representative governance with direct democracy practices.

As municipalities are the closest sphere to their residents, soliciting residents’ views through advisory referendums could perhaps be a way of making local democracy more direct and local politicians more accountable. Municipal decisions would enjoy greater legitimacy, as they would reflect the immediate preferences of residents.

Direct citizen involvement could be strengthened through local advisory referendums on infrastructure projects, neighbourhood assemblies and citizen forums, citizen panels to deliberate on policy proposals, and stronger requirements for public participation in municipal planning and by-law making. For example, in German states, such as Bavaria, residents can use a citizen initiative to decide directly on municipal matters. The initiative is submitted to the municipality, containing a question that can be answered with a yes or no, together with a justification. The initiative must be signed by a certain percentage of residents, depending on the size of the municipality. If there are no objections to the initiative, the municipal council determines its admissibility and must hold a referendum. The result of the referendum has the effect of a municipal council decision. In Switzerland, there is the Landsgemeinde, which is an open-air citizens’/residents’ assembly held once a year in a small number of cantons. Residents who are eligible to vote can submit a motion to their parliament, which discusses the motion and if at least 10 out of the 60 councillors think the motion requires further debate, they prepare a proposal for the residents’ assembly. Residents can then debate proposals and vote directly on matters such as laws, local taxes, and budgets by raising their hand or using a voting card. These examples suggest that direct democracy is possible at the local level when it is carefully designed and fused into representative institutions.

This proposal, however, is not to say that residents should vote directly on every municipal decision. This would create significant challenges, particularly for municipalities with large populations where waiting for public votes could delay decision-making. It is also acknowledged that referendums can be abused and suffer the risk of populism. When local politicians use them to avoid political accountability or to get support for contentious policies and by-laws, then their use would undermine democracy instead of strengthening it.

In conclusion, adopting some of the abovementioned direct democracy practices could improve legitimacy, accountability, and public trust without undermining the constitutional foundations of representative local government. Selective direct democracy practices, used when necessary, could work and ensure that municipalities remain both effective in governance and in responding to the communities they serve.

By Thabile Chonco-Spambo