Are municipalities failing — or are residents just unable to pay? Why many are turning to off-grid living
The index revealed that many South Africans are choosing to live in areas where they can be independent of municipal water and electricity services — driven largely by a lack of trust in local government.
In South Africa, municipalities play a very important role. They are responsible for providing the essential services that enable people to live with dignity, including clean, safe drinking water, reliable electricity, regular waste collection, and well-maintained roads.
These are not luxuries. They are necessities that every resident relies on daily.
However, these services do not come free. Just like any organisation, municipalities need money to keep running. They must pay workers, repair broken pipes and roads, and keep everything running smoothly. That money comes from the residents, who use the services and are expected to pay for them.
It is a two-way street. If residents pay, municipalities can deliver. If municipalities deliver, residents are more willing to pay. But when one side stops doing their part, everything begins to fall apart. That is exactly what we are seeing now.
According to the Absa Homeowners' Sentiment Index for the first quarter of 2025, many South Africans have lost faith in municipalities to provide these services. They are tired of poor service, broken promises, and being asked to pay for things they do not receive.
ALSO READ: Salga's wage deal: To pay municipal workers more or to fix collapsing areas?
What municipalities provide
The Index revealed that South Africans want to live in areas where they do not have to depend on the municipality for water and electricity.
They want homes with their own water systems, solar panels for electricity, and private services for waste and security. In short, they want to take back control. They are moving away from places where the government is supposed to help, and choosing places where they can help themselves.
76% of respondents indicated a desire to move away from state-supplied electricity, while 49% expressed interest in replacing municipal water sources.
This is not just a small change; it is a big warning. It shows that trust is being lost. And if that trust is not repaired, the whole system could collapse. Both municipalities and residents must do their part. If they do not, the future of service delivery in South Africa looks very uncertain.
Not depending on municipalities
Nondumiso Ncapai, managing executive of Absa Home Loans, said that many households are actively adopting more sustainable practices in their daily lives, with 57% cultivating fruit and vegetable gardens and 42% using solar power for electricity.
While 64% are exploring borehole and filtration systems, and 53% are considering rainwater harvesting to improve water security.
'We're seeing households take a more proactive stance on sustainability, not just through energy and water alternatives, but also through lifestyle changes that signal a broader recalibration of what homeownership means in today's environment.'
ALSO READ: Townhouse or standalone house? Here is what and where 30-year-olds are buying
Sentiment across the property market
Overall homeowner sentiment declined slightly by 2 percentage points to 85% in Q1 2025, down from 87% in Q4 2024.
She said the decline reflects growing uncertainty around the United States' policy direction and the South African Reserve Bank's decision not to implement a widely anticipated rate cut in March.
Despite this, the current reading remains the second-highest since the Index's inception a decade ago.
The average age of homebuyers continues to decline, with first-time buyers entering the market at 38 years old.
People not selling
The Index has also shown that not many people are selling properties, as most are still adopting a wait-and-see approach, anticipating that they will receive more money when they sell in the future.
When it comes to renting, many people indicated that they had saved enough for a deposit or sought more space, while others continued to favour renting for its flexibility and perceived affordability.
At the provincial level, the highest overall homeowner sentiment was recorded in Limpopo (93%), the Free State (92%), marking its highest score on record, and the Northern Cape (92%).
'Migration trends continue to shape local dynamics: the Western Cape remains a net beneficiary of inward migration, although the pace has slowed over the past three quarters.
'The Eastern Cape continues to record positive net migration, while KwaZulu-Natal has seen an uptick in outward migration.'
NOW READ: SA's poor service delivery linked to almost R500 billion spent on SOE bailouts
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Words that wound — ‘Kill the Boer' is legal, but not wise for a fragile South Africa
In March 2025, South Africa's Constitutional Court upheld a contentious ruling that the slogan 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' a liberation-era chant, does not constitute hate speech under South African law. This judgment followed an appeal by AfriForum against a previous judgment. The civil rights organisation argued that the slogan incited violence and hatred, particularly against white South Africans and especially farmers. The court found, however, that the phrase, when understood in its historical and political context, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech. That said, it is argued here that while the slogan may be constitutionally protected, its deliberate use in contemporary political settings is not merely provocative, it is profoundly unwise. In a society still grappling with the legacies of apartheid, endemic inequality and fragile race relations, words carry weight far beyond their legal definitions. It is within this context that the South Africa Social Cohesion Index (Sasci), developed by the Inclusive Society Institute, has drawn timely attention to a worrying decline in societal cohesion by providing critical insights into why the continued use of divisive slogans serve only to jeopardise the country's progress toward unity and social stability. The Constitutional Court's reasoning The Constitutional Court's dismissal of the appeal by AfriForum was grounded in legal and historical nuance. The justices concurred with the 2022 Equality Court ruling that the chant should not be taken literally but as a symbolic relic of the anti-apartheid struggle. It was not, they emphasised, a call to actual violence against individuals or groups. There was also insufficient evidence linking the use of the slogan to specific acts of harm or incitement, which is a requirement for speech to be classified as hate speech under South African law. This decision reaffirmed the robust commitment of the South African judiciary to freedom of expression, one of the bedrock rights enshrined in the post-apartheid Constitution. It recognises that a democratic society must allow space for emotional, political and even uncomfortable speech. But freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. Social cohesion under strain According to the 2024 Sasci, South Africa is treading a narrow ridge between cohesion and fragmentation. The index, which measures solidarity, fairness, trust, identity, civic participation and respect for institutions, paints a picture of partial resilience and underlying volatility. Solidarity sits at 61.3, indicating moderate willingness to care for others regardless of identity, but still vulnerable to racial and economic fault lines; Perception of Fairness, however, is a weak point, at 42.7, reflecting widespread public sentiment that South Africa's socioeconomic systems remain unjust; Intergroup Trust is alarmingly low – just 41% of black and white South Africans express some trust in one another; and Identification, that is, the sense of belonging to a shared national identity, is strong at 72.2, and is the glue that is holding the nation together. But this is susceptible to erosion under divisive rhetoric. These findings underscore a society still recovering from historical trauma, where the social glue is thin and brittle. Therefore, it is in this context that the use of a slogan such as 'Kill the Boer' must be evaluated, not in a courtroom, but in the court of public morality and nation-building. The political weaponisation of memory Chants such as 'Kill the Boer' are more than mere slogans. They are symbolic vessels, carrying the memory of past struggles, but also the potential to stir contemporary fears. So, with this in mind, it follows that the historical justification of the chant, which is rooted in anti-apartheid resistance, does not automatically make its current use, politically or socially, justifiable. In today's South Africa, invoking such slogans, especially during political rallies or in highly charged public platforms, is often a calculated act. It is a way of stoking populist sentiment, galvanising political bases and appealing to historical loyalties. But this comes at a steep cost: the polarisation of society, the re-traumatisation of communities and the erosion of hard-won intergroup solidarity. The Trump factor and global amplification The domestic controversy over 'Kill the Boer' took on international significance during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House in May 2025. In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the slogan once again found itself at the centre of a geopolitical flashpoint. Trump, resurrecting claims he first made in 2018, alleged that white South African farmers were the targets of a 'genocide'. He presented images purporting to show images of murdered white farmers. President Ramaphosa firmly rejected Trump's assertions, defending South Africa's constitutional land reform process and reaffirming the courts' dismissal of the 'white genocide' narrative. Yet, the damage had been done because Trump's global platform amplified fringe narratives and served to validate domestic fear-based politics within South Africa. This episode demonstrates how international rhetoric can dangerously reinforce internal social divisions, skew the global perception of South Africa's challenges and undermine the legitimacy of its reconciliation and land reform processes. Why legal speech can still be harmful Even if the courts are correct in finding that 'Kill the Boer' does not legally constitute hate speech, it is crucial to understand that legality does not equate to wisdom, unity or responsibility. In a country with such deep wounds, where race, land, identity and violence intersect in volatile ways, rhetoric matters. When political figures or public activists invoke this chant in the present day, they must consider: The historical trauma it reactivates for many white South Africans; The fear it induces among farming communities; The backlash it sparks from domestic and international actors; and Most importantly, the distrust and division it fuels between already polarised communities. Words, especially in political arenas, do not exist in a vacuum. They shape social perception, inform behaviour and influence whether people feel safe, respected and included. What leadership requires Leadership in a democratic society does not simply involve defending rights; it involves exercising them responsibly. South Africa's path forward depends not only on constitutional fidelity, but on a moral and social imagination capable of transcending inherited grievances. Political leaders and public influencers must ask: Does this speech unify or divide? Does it heal or harm? The question is no longer about what is legal, but what is nation-building. This is by no means a call for censorship. It is a call for ethical and moral restraint and for choosing reconciliation over rhetoric. And for choosing unity over provocation. It is possible to honour the past without weaponising it. It is possible to demand justice without alienating communities. It is possible to seek equity without amplifying enmity. Conclusion: The test of nationhood South Africa's journey from apartheid to democracy is often lauded as a global symbol of reconciliation. But symbols can become brittle. The Sasci's data tell us that the social cement is cracking and the slogan controversy is one fault line among many. If left unaddressed, such fissures can widen into fractures. The Constitutional Court has spoken on what the law allows. Now the burden falls to civil society, political leaders and ordinary citizens to determine what wisdom, justice and reconciliation demand. In a country where speech has the power to harm or to heal, the future will not be built by shouting into wounds, but by speaking into hope. DM
TimesLIVE
9 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
‘Apartheid Did Not Die' by Mandla J Radebe
ABOUT THE BOOK More than three decades after the fall of apartheid, the spectre of its legacy continues to cast a long, divisive shadow over SA's democracy. Apartheid Did Not Die is a powerful indictment of the persistent structures of racial power and economic inequality that continue to shape the nation. Prof Mandla J Radebe confronts the unsettling truth that for many, the democratic era has not dismantled the architecture of apartheid, it has merely repainted it. He interrogates the role of the media in shaping public consciousness and maintaining elite hegemony. Through explorations of the endurance of racial capitalism, and sharp media and political analysis, Apartheid Did Not Die challenges us to reckon with the unfinished business of justice and true liberation. EXTRACT A Cathartic Moment Since the government's bold announcement that it would approach the ICJ under the Genocide Convention to address 'acts committed by Israel' in the ongoing Gaza siege, this principled move was met with widespread applause, especially within progressive circles. As survivors of apartheid, South Africans hold a unique perspective that enables us to recognise when similar systems of oppression and injustice are unfolding. Our lived experience instils a commitment to international solidarity, precisely because it was acts of generosity from people we did not even know who played a crucial role in contributing to our freedom. Therefore, this continues to drive us to stand against any form of injustice to ensure that others do not endure similar traumatic experiences. The government's case was rooted in deep concerns over the 'plight of civilians caught in the present Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip', highlighting the indiscriminate use of force and the forcible displacement of inhabitants. The government argued that these actions constituted international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. Moreover, the government presented evidence suggesting that acts meeting the threshold of genocide or related crimes, as defined under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, were occurring in Gaza. Granted, South Africa is a country of people with diverse perspectives, including those who support Israel. In fact, most organisations representing sections of the white settler community not only opposed the decision but were appalled by it. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticised the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ, accusing it of failing 'to play a role in engaging with both sides' of the conflict. The SAJBD said it 'mourns the loss of innocent life on both sides of the current Israel–Hamas conflict'. The use of the words 'war' and 'conflict' in reference to Gaza obscure a number of historical facts, beyond the reality that this is a one-sided annihilation of the Palestinians by Israel. The number of dead Palestinians, predominantly women and children, speaks volumes. Nonetheless, the SAJBD holds the view that the government is biased in its approach, stating, 'We urged our government to play a role in talking to both sides, and in using their influence to ensure Hamas releases the hostages, following their deadly raid on Israel on 7 October'. Similarly, the official opposition, the DA, criticised the government's decision, contending that South Africa was 'taking sides' and had 'undermined its ability to serve as a neutral mediator'. Its spokesperson, Emma Powell, accused the ANC government of inconsistency, stating, 'It is, however, a great pity that the South African government has consistently ignored gross human rights violations on our own doorsteps, including in Sudan and Zimbabwe'. This retort, often echoed by those who covertly support the atrocities in Gaza, accuses SA of selectively addressing conflicts far removed and affecting non-Africans, while allegedly ignoring crises on the continent. Some 'black' organisations, such as the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), invoke biblical justifications for their support of Israel. ACDP leader Kenneth Meshoe argued that, instead of taking Israel to the UN's top court for genocide crimes, SA could have mediated to convince Hamas to release the hostages captured during the October 7 raid in Israel. Meshoe also questioned the validity of the government's case, claiming, 'We also do not believe that the South African government will be able to prove that Israel has the necessary genocidal intent against the Palestinian people as required by the genocide convention'. The opposition by the ACDP and other obscure black organisations to the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ reflects a painful reality that, in every society and struggle, there are collaborators, those whose minds have been so deeply infiltrated by the enemy's propaganda that they often adopt positions more radical than the oppressor's. This phenomenon speaks to the psychological scars of colonialism, as Fanon articulated. South African poet Mzwakhe Mbuli captures this sentiment poignantly in one of his stanzas: 'ukulimala kwengqondo, ukulimala komuntu' (a psychological wound can be as devastating as physical harm). Of course, the likes of Meshoe were proven wrong by the court, which found Israel responsible for, inter alia, racial segregation and apartheid against the Palestinians. The ruling detailed a long list of abuses and violations of international law that Israeli authorities had committed. It declared Israel's occupation illegal and established clear standards for Israel to provide reparations to the Palestinian people. Indeed, the ICJ rulings align with extensive evidence of grave crimes committed by Israeli authorities, as presented by the UN and numerous experts. In a landmark case brought by SA, the ICJ issued three binding rulings mandating urgent measures that Israeli authorities must implement to prevent the risk of genocide in their military operations in Gaza. Let us now return to why I regard this as a cathartic moment for many ordinary South Africans such as myself. For those of us who experienced apartheid first-hand and continue to live with its physical and emotional scars and its permanent legacies, this case symbolises a reckoning with injustice on a global stage. It is a moment of collective validation for the oppressed, and an opportunity to demand accountability in the face of systemic violence. For many, it rekindles the hope that their own struggles and sacrifices have not been forgotten, and that the fight against oppression, wherever it exists, remains a universal imperative. The ICJ proceedings provided a platform for marginalised voices to articulate the profound impact of apartheid oppression, with the Gaza genocide serving as the focal point. The Israeli government and the apartheid regime were and are, two brutal forces, alike in indignity. Much like the TRC, which served as a vital space to confront the architects of apartheid, such as the ruthless operatives of the Vlakplaas unit, the ICJ hearings resonated deeply with those who suffered under apartheid. For those who once endured such horrors in silence, the ICJ proceedings were not solely about justice for Palestinians, but they also symbolised an opportunity for personal and collective healing, connecting past and present struggles against systemic oppression. The TRC, which was established to uncover the truth, and allow victims to recount their harrowing experiences, and confront those responsible for grave injustices. It served as a symbolic arena where the silenced could reclaim their narratives, shedding light on the depths of their suffering. The scars of apartheid, deeply etched in the national psyche, found recognition through the TRC's crucial role in fostering healing and reconciliation. The testimonies shared during the process transcended personal anguish, and in the process, they became testaments to resilience and the indomitable spirit of those who were oppressed. These stories brought to light both the pain of the past and the courage of individuals committed to justice and equality. The proceedings at the ICJ rekindled these memories, providing a rare and invaluable platform for the Palestinian voice to be heard on an international stage. The Palestinians' experiences of oppression and suffering were unveiled, laying bare, for the world to witness, the harsh realities they face every minute. t brought to bear the universal yearning for dignity and equality and how the Palestinians are resisting the shackles of oppression. Indeed, it is imperative to acknowledge that healing is an ongoing journey. While the TRC, for instance, marked a significant step towards reconciliation, it also revealed the complexities of forgiveness in the immediate aftermath of deep-seated trauma. Critical conversations about justice were ignited, just like the accountability and the collective responsibility to build a more equitable and inclusive future. While celebrating SA's principled stance, we must honour the strength and courage of those who spoke out, even as we confront the ongoing challenges in the pursuit of genuine justice. The ICJ case serves as a reminder that the journey towards truth and reconciliation demands commitment and vigilance; this is the basis upon which a nation liberated from the shadows of its painful past may be constructed. This cannot happen in isolation but requires dedication to international solidarity premised on a genuine commitment to global peace and justice. This is the only way to guarantee that such atrocities do not recur. However, if we fail to counter imperialism, the driving force behind racial capitalism and other injustices, our efforts are unlikely to succeed. It is this very commitment that underpins SA's unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle.
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
Unlocking tourism potential between China and South Africa
Unlocking tourism potential between China and South Africa For South Africans considering travel to China, the consulate has specific travel guidelines aimed at ensuring a smooth and enjoyable experience. This week, the Daily News had the opportunity to engage directly with the Chinese Consul General in Durban, Li Zhigong, who showcased the vast opportunities for tourism and travel between China and South Africa. With a shared vision of fostering stronger bilateral ties, the consul general outlined strategic initiatives aimed at not just facilitating travel but also enriching the cultural exchange between the two nations. One of the primary focuses of the Consulate General is to promote high-level exchanges between sister cities and provinces. "These efforts help spark greater interest in China among local communities and foster closer people-to-people ties," Li explained. Efforts include enhanced communication and collaboration on tourism initiatives, underpinned by a commitment to mutual understanding and friendship. In a notable development this year, the consulate has initiated an express visa option, designed to streamline the application process for Chinese tourists wishing to visit South Africa. "The express visa can be processed within three to four working days with simple and user-friendly requirements," Li said. This is a significant improvement, especially when the visa process has previously been a major hurdle for potential visitors. For South African tourism operators eager to attract Chinese visitors, Li offered several crucial recommendations. He urged operators to tailor their offerings to better meet the preferences of Chinese visitors. "This includes providing services in Chinese, accepting payment methods like UnionPay and Alipay, and promoting destinations through Chinese social media platforms," he said. Cultural sensitivity and a welcoming atmosphere are also vital in creating memorable travel experiences for Chinese tourists. The consul general acknowledged the ongoing challenges faced in attracting more tourists due to the complexities surrounding the visa application process. "We are actively engaging with the South African Department of Home Affairs, as obtaining a South African visa remains time-consuming and difficult for Chinese citizens," Li said, As for South Africans considering travel to China, the consulate has specific travel guidelines aimed at ensuring a smooth and enjoyable experience. According to Li, visitors are encouraged to meticulously plan their itineraries and familiarise themselves with essential apps such as WeChat, Alipay, and translation tools, as these are critical for navigating the vast cultural landscape. He added that key destinations such as Beijing, Xi'an, and Shanghai are highly recommended and travellers are advised to respect local customs and be aware of the legal framework to ensure a harmonious visit. "We truly hope more South Africans will visit China to see and experience more for themselves. South Africa is not only a partner but also a brother to China, and we sincerely wish for our people to grow closer and develop deeper mutual understanding," said Li. *This is Part 4 of a series of exclusive interviews that the Chinese Consul General in Durban, Li Zhigong, granted the Daily News' editor, Ayanda Mdluli.
