From: Douglas Vandergraph
Via email
A ballot is cast and the campaign arguments continue. Some voters feel hopeful; others are disappointed. Political parties begin to discuss what the results will mean. The public conversation may remain focused on winners, losers and the arrangements needed to govern.
Meanwhile, a household still needs water, a safe route to school and a dependable answer when a local service fails.
That is why the most important test of an election begins after the vote. People can disagree profoundly about the best political programme and still share an interest in a municipality that communicates clearly, repairs problems responsibly and treats residents fairly.
South Africans have good reason to pay attention to the practical performance of local government. Daily Friend‘s election coverage has repeatedly returned to the relationship between the ballot and everyday services. That is a useful focus, whatever a reader’s political preference.
But the standard should go beyond a general call for competent government. We need to ask what accountability feels like to the person whose problem has not been solved.
Consider a resident reporting an interruption. Is there a clear place to make the report? Does the person receive a reference or explanation that allows reasonable follow-up? If the problem cannot be fixed immediately, is the delay communicated honestly? Can someone who does not use online forms still reach a responsible office?
These questions are less dramatic than a campaign speech. Yet they shape whether residents believe public institutions take their lives seriously.
My Christian faith gives me a reason to keep the person at the centre of the discussion. When Jesus teaches about the Good Samaritan, he asks his listeners to consider a traveller who stops and helps someone in need. The Samaritan does not ask whether the injured person belongs to a convenient political group. He responds to the need in front of him.
I do not claim that a Bible story tells South Africa which parties should govern. That would be a misuse of the story. It tells me that my neighbour’s dignity remains important even when we disagree and even when helping requires effort.
The standard can be shared by readers who do not share my faith. A person should not receive poorer treatment from a public office because of their vote, beliefs or social position. A community cannot afford to let political identity determine whose broken water connection matters.
Good local accountability involves several practical habits.
First, it requires transparent procedures. Residents should know how to report faults, how responsibility is allocated and what information they can reasonably expect in return.
Second, it requires attention to people who are difficult to hear. A daytime consultation may exclude the worker who cannot leave a shift. An online-only form may exclude an older resident. A meeting dominated by confident speakers may miss the quiet person who understands a recurring problem better than anybody else.
Third, it requires respect for frontline employees. People working at counters, on roads and in maintenance teams deserve realistic resources and protection from abuse. Anger at an institution should not become permission to humiliate the person answering the phone.
None of these practices guarantees instant repair. Infrastructure, staff and money are limited. Officials may have to explain unwelcome priorities or delays. An honest answer is not the same as a satisfactory outcome, but it is more respectful than silence.
Residents also have duties. They can provide accurate information, reject rumours, and raise legitimate concerns without treating neighbours with different political views as enemies. Accountability works best when it does not require contempt.
The measure of peace after an election is not that everyone has the same opinion. It is that people can disagree and still trust that the rules of public service apply equally to them.
One morning soon, a resident who did not vote for the winning party will need to call the municipality. Someone who supported the winner will need to make the same call. Both should receive the same serious attention.
A council’s worth will be measured not by how warmly it speaks to its supporters but by how faithfully it serves the neighbour whose ballot went elsewhere.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend