Citizens in Zimbabwe and South Africa are speaking with clarity about what they expect from their governments, and they are defining for themselves what success should look like. In Zimbabwe, decades of economic hardship and governance failures have sharpened demands for basic services. In South Africa, persistent inequality, unemployment, and declining trust in institutions dominate public sentiment. What unites these voices is a simple truth that citizens want governments that listen, act, and deliver in ways that are visible in their everyday realities. Our Citizens’ Perception and Expectations (CPE) research is a nationwide survey of ordinary citizens to find out how they feel about the performance of the government.  

The 2025 Citizens’ Perception and Expectations (CPE) Survey in Zimbabwe drew insights from 2,006 respondents across all ten provinces, while the South Africa CPE Survey engaged 3,156 respondents across nine provinces. Together, these reports reveal frustration and disappointment amongst citizens. This article draws on insights from both reports to unpack the dominant trends shaping citizen expectations in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

What did we find?  

Low Levels of Public Participation in Public Processes 

Citizen participation in decision-making remains strikingly poor in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, especially at the central government level. This signals a governance architecture that is still closed to the people it claims to serve. In South Africa, only 12% of citizens said that they had participated in any policy formulation processes, while in Zimbabwe, only 25% had participated in any policy formulation process.  In South Africa, 55% of citizens felt that they have no room to make an input in policy processes, while in Zimbabwe, 63% of respondents shared similar sentiments. This reflects not just apathy but a systemic exclusion of citizens from shaping decisions that directly affect their lives. For citizens and elected officials to truly find each other, engagement must move beyond symbolic consultations to tangible mechanisms that embed citizen voices in governance. Without this shift, governments risk perpetuating a cycle where policies are designed in isolation 

Dissatisfaction with Local Government  

In Zimbabwe, more than half of citizens (60%) rated their local government performance as medium, while 32% rated low and 7% rated it high.  Disaggregated by location, the trend remained consistent, with medium ratings dominating across peri-urban (58%), rural (60%), and urban (62%) areas. However, in South Africa, 70% of respondents ranked their municipalities’ performance as low, with only 2% rating them high. This pattern held across provinces and locations, with 74% of peri-urban, 73% of rural, and 67% of urban residents giving low ratings. The findings show a clear pattern: in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, citizens are not satisfied with the performance of their local government. While Zimbabwe’s ratings lean toward “medium,” this still reflects a sense of limited delivery and unmet expectations. In South Africa, most citizens rank their municipalities as “low,” pointing to a deeper crisis of confidence. What makes these results particularly significant is that local government is the most immediate and daily platform through which citizens interact with the state. It is where service delivery, accountability, and responsiveness are most visible in everyday life. When this level of government fails to deliver, it is not only disappointing but also erodes trust in governance more broadly. In South Africa, citizens’ top priorities for local government were job creation (57%), water and sanitation (44%) and reducing crime (38%). In Zimbabwe, the priorities are clean water supply (52%), functioning clinics (37%) and road maintenance (36%). When asked about what hinders the performance of local government, 69% in South Africa identified corruption as the primary hindrance, followed by incompetence of office holders (13%) and nepotism (6%). Zimbabwe had a similar finding, corruption (35%) was on top of the list, followed by incompetent office holders (19%) and inadequate resources (15%). 

Dissatisfaction with Central/National Government  

Across both countries, the surveys point to a troubling stagnation in government performance. Citizens acknowledge pockets of progress. In South Africa, overall Government of National Unity (GNU) performance was rated low by 71% of respondents, a striking signal of dissatisfaction. On specific indicators, 33% said government performance remained stagnant.  Zimbabweans note improvements in infrastructure and international reengagement, but the dominant perception is that governments are failing to deliver on the fundamentals. In Zimbabwe, 50% of citizens rated the national government’s performance as ‘medium’. An average of 46% highlighted that government performance in key areas has remained the same. In both contexts, citizens are clear about the priorities that national government should focus on. In South Africa, the top four priorities that emerged, are: 

• Employment creation (80%) 
• Tackling corruption (53%) 
• Price stability (23%) 
• Healthcare delivery (21%) 

In Zimbabwe, the top four priorities are: 

• Employment creation (58%) 
• Tackling corruption (43%) 
• Healthcare delivery (38%) 
• Resuscitating industry (24%) 

For citizens in both countries, underperformance in key sectors is not seen as a problem of inadequate resources. In South Africa, when asked if national government has enough resources, 63% of respondents expressed that resources are adequate. In Zimbabwe, 82% said resources are adequate. Citizens believe the real barriers to development lie elsewhere, namely, the incompetence of office holders and ineffective leadership. In South Africa, the top suggestion for resource mobilisation was curbing corruption, cited by 79% of respondents, while in Zimbabwe, 32% of respondents suggested that national government could mobilise resources by cutting expenditure. This points to a widespread perception of overspending and misallocation, where citizens believe resources exist but are squandered through bloated costs, inefficiency, or priorities that do not serve the public. Both perspectives converge on a critical expectation that governments must demonstrate competence, integrity, and accountability if they are to meet citizens’ demands for responsive governance. 

In the surveys, citizens are clear about what they want national and local governments to prioritise. These priorities have been consistent. In South Africa, citizens emphasise employment creation, dealing with corruption, price stabilisation, healthcare delivery, clean water and sanitation, and reducing crime.  In Zimbabwe, jobs, healthcare, tackling corruption, access to clean water and road maintenance remain the core demands. These are not extravagant asks. They are the basic expectations of any functioning state.  

The lesson for governments is clear: citizens do not need grand political slogans or ambitious blueprints that take years to materialise. They need practical action. 

• Economic policies that create real jobs, not just stability on paper. In both countries, unemployment and informal work dominate, leaving citizens without security or dignity. 
• Reducing corruption. South Africans place corruption at the centre of their concerns, reflecting how deeply it permeates institutions and undermines service delivery. Zimbabweans, too, see corruption as a barrier, but they also highlight overspending and waste as evidence of poor leadership. 
• Access to decent public health services. Healthcare remains a universal demand. 
• Genuinely open policymaking. Citizens want to be heard, not as an afterthought but as partners shaping decisions. 
• A laser focus on service delivery. Access to water, electricity, housing, and local services is the first point of interaction between citizens and office holders, and often the true measure of government performance. 

Conclusion

From a citizen’s lens, true change is measured in the everyday. Figures or lofty growth targets do not move people. Growing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), for example, has not translated to improved lives on the ground. Citizens experience governance through water in their taps, medicine in their clinics, functioning industries that provide decent jobs, electricity that lights their homes, and streets that are safe from crime. Good governance is not abstract; it is lived. It should capture and reflect the voices of the people it serves. Citizens are clear: their expectations are basic but non-negotiable. They want governments that listen, act, and deliver. Decisions must be shaped by those who live with their consequences, not imposed from above. The lesson is simple, yet profound development is not about slogans or blueprints that gather dust. It is about dignity in daily life. Until governments place citizens’ voices at the centre of policymaking and service delivery, trust will remain fragile in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. But when leaders embrace this truth, they unlock the possibility of governance that is not only effective but transformative. And the question that lingers is unavoidable: if policies are not aligned with citizen priorities, who are they really being made for?