A recent survey by the Sivio Institute has revealed widespread dissatisfaction among South African citizens with the service delivery performance of their municipalities. The Citizens’ Perceptions and Expectations (CPE) study found that 70% of respondents rated their municipality’s performance as low, while only 2% described it as high.
Development practitioner and researcher Yolokazi Mfuto discussed the findings, noting that the survey sampled approximately 3,300 people across all provinces in South Africa (though some references indicate a national sample of around 2,006 in related reporting). Dissatisfaction was particularly acute in regions like KwaZulu-Natal, where up to 93% of citizens reported that their municipality was failing to meet community needs. This sentiment aligns with ongoing service delivery protests, where residents frequently lack reliable access to basic services—even when payments are made.
Mfuto highlighted that citizens’ expectations remain grounded in fundamental needs rather than unrealistic demands. Top priorities include job creation and access to employment, clean water and sanitation, and measures to combat corruption. Many respondents are unemployed, reliant on social grants, or operating in informal markets, and they view access to water not as a luxury but as an essential service often absent in provinces such as Limpopo, the Eastern Cape, and others. Citizens attribute poor service delivery largely to a lack of political will and inadequate accountability for corruption, emphasizing that these are promises made by governments that have not been fulfilled.
The study indicated that public frustration is not primarily tied to specific political formations, such as the Government of National Unity (GNU). Instead, citizens focus on delivery outcomes regardless of who holds power. While some positive steps—like increases in social grants—were acknowledged, respondents showed little enthusiasm for such measures, preferring sustainable employment opportunities that allow meaningful economic contribution.
Mfuto observed growing public disengagement from government processes, including Integrated Development Plan (IDP) discussions and national budget matters. Many citizens have become disillusioned, feeling that high-profile interventions—such as presidential or premier announcements, professionalization efforts in local government, the District Development Model, or Treasury support for infrastructure—have failed to translate into tangible improvements on the ground. Initial hopes following the GNU’s formation have largely faded, with some reporting that conditions have worsened.
On the emphasis some municipal leaders place on achieving clean audits as a key performance indicator, Mfuto explained that citizens attach little importance to them. Clean audits may reflect proper financial reporting or governance on paper, but they do not equate to service delivery. Examples abound of municipalities returning unspent funds to national coffers while residents receive no benefits, leading to perceptions of poor representation and a failure to meet the basic social contract.
Mfuto described the report not as a technical policy document but as a stark warning signal from citizens themselves. With local government elections approaching later in the year, the findings could influence voting patterns. Discontent may lead some to support different parties, while others might opt for apathy and abstain from voting altogether. Political organizations, she suggested, would be wise to heed these insights, return to communities, reaffirm commitments, and demonstrate concrete solutions—particularly as municipalities serve as the primary point of contact between citizens and the state.
The survey forms part of the Sivio Institute’s broader efforts to track government performance against promises made in manifestos, State of the Nation Addresses, and medium-term plans, providing citizens with transparent assessments of progress—or the lack thereof.