Think about how much of our lives now unfold on social media. We scroll through news, opinions, jokes, warnings and urgent calls to share something before we have even checked whether it is true. During an election, this constant stream of information becomes more than just background noise. It becomes part of how democracy lives or dies. In South Africa, the Electoral Commission (IEC) has found itself at the centre of a digital information crisis. Misinformation and disinformation are not just annoying online glitches. They can threaten human rights and shake confidence in the institutions that make free and fair elections possible. When people cannot tell what is true, or when they no longer believe the electoral system is trustworthy, their ability to participate meaningfully in democracy is damaged. That is why the changing nature of harmful online content is so worrying. In the past, election-related falsehoods often focused on practical details: wrong election dates, confusing voting arrangements, or claims that elections had been postponed. Those problems still exist, but platform moderators and organisations like Real411 are seeing something more dangerous. Content now seems designed to undermine the legitimacy, independence and credibility of the electoral process itself. It is not just misleading people about when or where to vote. It is trying to convince them that voting is pointless because the system is rigged, corrupt, or controlled by a political party.
Consider the kinds of claims that have been surfacing. Some posts allege that the IEC is secretly aligned with the African National Congress, declaring without evidence that the commission has been captured by a party. Others make accusations of collusion between the IEC and the ANC around candidate submissions, or call the commission corrupt. There are broad generalisations about IEC officials in rural areas being biased and untrustworthy. There are claims that the ANC and the IEC have been working together since 1994, with calls to replace both. Some of this content is presented as established fact, even though no credible evidence supports it. Some of it is fabricated or manipulated to look authentic, making it even harder for ordinary people to separate fact from fiction. It is important to understand the difference between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information. Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people and cause harm. Both can be damaging, but proving that something is false does not automatically prove that someone intended to deceive. The line matters, because it affects how we respond. If we treat every false claim as a deliberate conspiracy, we risk punishing mistakes and misunderstanding people’s intentions. If we ignore deliberate deception, we allow bad actors to poison public debate. The growth of attacks on the IEC is a serious challenge, but the answer is not to silence criticism. It is to look at the evidence, understand the context, and respond in ways that protect both truth and democratic freedom.
Not all criticism is disinformation, and that is a point worth holding onto. Freedom of expression is a basic democratic right. Section 16 of the South African Constitution protects speech, including the right to receive and impart information and ideas. That protection covers robust political debate, harsh criticism of public institutions, and views that are unpopular or provocative. Real411, a platform that allows people to report potentially harmful online content, understands this. It starts from the assumption that a reported post is not an online harm unless clear evidence shows that it meets specific criteria. This default in favour of speech is crucial. It helps ensure that efforts to fight misinformation do not become censorship in disguise. Real411 is not supposed to protect public institutions from being questioned. It is not there to decide which political opinions are acceptable or to silence dissent. Its job is to assess complaints against clearly defined standards and an appropriate level of evidence. A post should not be treated as a violation just because it criticises the IEC, questions its independence, or expresses opposition to the electoral process. The real challenge is finding a way to address demonstrably false and harmful content without trampling on constitutionally protected expression. Protecting electoral integrity cannot come at the expense of the democratic freedoms that elections are meant to serve. We cannot fight lies by abandoning the very principles that make democracy worth defending.
This matters far beyond the reputation of the IEC. The right to participate in free and fair elections depends on an environment where people can access reliable information and make informed choices. False claims about voter registration, candidate eligibility, polling dates, or electoral procedures can stop people from voting. Unsupported allegations that electoral institutions are irredeemably corrupt can also weaken public confidence in the mechanisms through which citizens exercise their political rights. When people believe the system is already rigged, they may decide not to participate at all. This is especially concerning for people who rely heavily on social media or messaging platforms for election updates. First-time voters, young people, and individuals with limited digital literacy are particularly vulnerable. They may struggle to tell the difference between an official IEC announcement and a fabricated notice designed to mislead them. Election-related narratives can also become intertwined with hostility towards particular groups. In South Africa, where political tensions and anti-immigration attitudes sometimes surface online, misinformation can contribute to an environment where intimidation, discrimination, or even violence seem more acceptable. These risks cannot be understood in the abstract. They need to be assessed in context, with attention to the content, its reach, its factual basis, and its potential consequences. That is why a well-resourced public broadcaster is so important. Public broadcasting can help verify information and scrutinise political claims, especially when the legitimacy of electoral institutions is being questioned online. But there is a problem. Uncertainty over funding for the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s coverage of the 2026 local government elections is making things worse. The SABC has asked for R120 million in additional funding to support comprehensive election coverage, but that money had not been secured by early October 2026. The broadcaster says it will cover the elections anyway, but available resources will affect the scale, depth and technical capacity of that coverage. In a digital age, that gap matters.
Protecting electoral integrity requires more than deleting posts or correcting misleading narratives after they have already spread. It requires accountability, timely access to reliable information, and a collective commitment to evidence-based public debate. Responsibility does not rest only with the IEC or digital platforms. Political actors, media houses, journalists, civil society organisations and members of the public all have a role to play. The IEC must provide timely, accessible and verifiable information about election dates, voter registration, candidate nominations and voting procedures. Transparent communication and prompt responses to legitimate questions give the public reliable information against which claims can be assessed. The commission must also remain accountable for its own conduct and open to scrutiny. Efforts to counter disinformation should never be used to shield the IEC, or any other public institution, from legitimate criticism. Media houses and journalists carry a particular responsibility to verify claims before publishing or amplifying them. This is especially true when it comes to allegations of electoral fraud, political interference, or institutional collusion. Unverified claims can reach huge audiences even when they are repeated in an attempt to expose or debunk them. Responsible reporting means distinguishing established facts from allegations and opinion, providing relevant context, and correcting inaccuracies transparently. At the same time, journalism must not lose its watchdog role. Investigating credible allegations and holding electoral institutions and political actors accountable is part of what makes democracy work. Digital platforms also need to apply their content policies fairly and transparently. Civil society organisations can help communities access reliable information, challenge misleading narratives, and understand their rights. And ordinary people have a role too. Before sharing election-related content, it helps to check the source, compare it with official communications and credible reporting, and question claims that are presented as fact without supporting evidence. Where content appears to contain harmful misinformation or disinformation, people can report it through Real411. A report is not proof of a violation, and each complaint must be assessed on its merits and in context. The goal is not to eliminate political disagreement. It is to ensure that fabricated claims do not distort public debate or undermine people’s ability to participate meaningfully in the electoral process.
As the local government elections approach, the growing prominence of online content alleging electoral manipulation or portraying the IEC as an extension of a political party is a serious challenge. The answer, however, is not to silence dissent or demand public confidence in the commission regardless of its conduct. It is to ensure that claims can be tested against evidence, that credible allegations are investigated, and that falsehoods can be challenged without suppressing legitimate criticism. A democracy cannot thrive when citizens are misled about how it works. Nor can it thrive when the institutions responsible for safeguarding it are beyond scrutiny. Protecting electoral integrity requires all of us to defend both the right to question power and the public’s right to reliable information. It also requires us to take responsibility for the information we produce, publish, share and challenge. Democracy is not just an event. It is not just an election day, a ballot box, or a set of political parties competing for power. It is a shared practice of trust, accountability and informed participation. That practice depends on ordinary people being able to know what is true, to question what is false, and to hold power to account without fear. In the end, the fight against misinformation and disinformation is not really about policing the internet. It is about protecting the human right to participate in shaping the society we live in. That means taking care of the information space with the same seriousness we bring to the voting booth itself.