“As South Africa selects its next generation of councillors and mayors, public office must be treated as a duty to serve—not a prize to be won.”

South Africa has entered the decisive phase of choosing the public representatives who will shape local government after the 4 November 2026 elections. Candidate nominations close on 28 August. Behind the lists, interviews and internal contests lies a question more consequential than party arithmetic: what kind of person should be entrusted with the municipality, the public purse and the daily dignity of communities?

Local government is where the state becomes visible. It is the water in a household tap, the refuse collected on time, the road repaired, the building plan processed and the municipal account explained. When local leadership fails, constitutional promises are not merely delayed; they are experienced as broken trust.

This is why the present search for councillors, mayors and other public representatives cannot be reduced to electability, factional balance, celebrity or loyalty. Competence matters greatly, but technical skill without character can make wrongdoing more efficient. The first threshold must be integrity: an established disposition to place the public interest above personal enrichment, patronage and political convenience.

A useful leadership metaphor comes from the ANC discussion document Through the Eye of a Needle. Its value extends beyond the organisation that produced it. The document insists that leadership is not an entitlement or a route to status; it should rest on a desire to serve, a credible record in the community and the diligence to govern. Those propositions belong in the country’s wider democratic vocabulary.

The “eye of the needle” should therefore be understood as a demanding public-interest test through which every aspirant must pass. Does the candidate have a record of honest service? Can the person resist the pull of tenders, favours and factional obligation? Can they work with officials without capturing the administration? Can they listen to residents, explain difficult choices and build agreement across political divides? And when they fail, will they accept accountability rather than manufacture excuses?

These questions are especially urgent in an era of fragmented councils and coalition government. A councillor may be asked not only to represent a ward, but also to negotiate budgets, oversee entities, scrutinise contracts and sustain a governing arrangement among competitors. Political skill is necessary, but it must be anchored in principle. Otherwise, coalition-building degenerates into transactional bargaining over positions and access to municipal resources.

Character is not a claim candidates can make about themselves. It is evidence accumulated over time. Parties and civic formations should test it through transparent vetting: declarations of interests, qualifications and criminal or disciplinary findings; scrutiny of past performance; community input; and clear reasons for selecting one candidate over another. Independent candidates should meet the same standard. Public trust cannot be rebuilt by opaque processes that ask citizens to accept a finished list on faith.

Nor should ethics be confined to induction workshops after election. Municipal leadership needs an institutional moral operating system: enforceable codes, protected whistle-blowers, functioning oversight committees, open procurement, regular performance reporting and consequences that do not depend on political proximity. Good people need systems that support integrity; good systems need leaders willing to defend them.

Political parties carry the greatest immediate responsibility because they control most routes to municipal office. They should resist the temptation to reward loyalty without capacity, to recycle demonstrably failed leaders or to use proportional-representation lists as shelters from community judgment. A nomination is not an internal favour. It is a proposal to place public power in someone’s hands.

Citizens also have a role beyond election day. Communities, professional bodies, organised labour, business, faith organisations and civic groups should interrogate candidate records, convene open forums and publish non-partisan scorecards. Democracy is weakened when scrutiny begins only after scandal. The public must help set the threshold before power is conferred.

The habits tolerated during selection become the culture of government. If manipulation, intimidation, patronage and dishonesty are normalised on the road to office, they will not disappear at the council door. Conversely, credible selection processes can begin the work of restoring confidence before the first council meeting is held.

South Africa does not suffer from a shortage of people who want to lead. It suffers from an insufficiently demanding test of why they want to lead, what they have done with responsibility and whose interests they will serve when pressure arrives. The country must narrow the passage to public office—not to exclude capable newcomers, but to keep out entitlement, greed and contempt for accountability.

The coming local elections offer every party, independent candidate and voter a practical opportunity to reset the standard. Let competence be demonstrated. Let community standing be tested. Let integrity be verified. Let service, not status, be the motive.

When South Africa searches for its next public representatives, character must be the eye of the needle. Everything else should pass through it.