“Public confidence among South African voters in their ability to identify fake news has declined, with the proportion saying they are confident in recognising disinformation falling from 62% in 2023 to 52% in 2025/26, according to the latest IEC Voter Participation Survey. At the same time, only 18% of respondents say they regularly verify election-related information before liking, sharing or reposting it, raising questions about how political information will circulate as parties intensify campaigning for the November local elections.”
Public confidence among South African voters in their ability to identify fake news has declined, with the proportion saying they are confident in recognising disinformation falling from 62% in 2023 to 52% in 2025/26, according to the latest IEC Voter Participation Survey. At the same time, only 18% of respondents say they regularly verify election-related information before liking, sharing or reposting it, raising questions about how political information will circulate as parties intensify campaigning for the November local elections.
South African voters face growing challenge of election disinformation as public confidence declines
South Africa’s political information environment is entering an important period as the country prepares for the 2026 Local Government Elections. With voting scheduled for 4 November, political parties, candidates, civil society organisations, journalists and voters are increasingly turning their attention to the information that will shape public debate and electoral choices.
One of the latest developments concerns public confidence in identifying false or misleading information. Research highlighted by the Institute for Security Studies shows that fewer South Africans now describe themselves as confident in recognising fake news. The proportion fell from 62% in 2023 to 52% in 2025/26. At the same time, only 18% of respondents said they regularly verify election-related information before liking, sharing or reposting it.
The findings are significant because public opinion during an election is influenced not only by political speeches, manifestos and traditional news reports, but also by information circulating through social networks, messaging applications and online communities. As more campaign activity moves into digital spaces, voters may encounter genuine political communication alongside inaccurate claims, manipulated material and content produced to influence perceptions.
The Electoral Commission of South Africa has already introduced a new Electoral Code of Conduct Countering Disinformation for the 2026 Local Government Elections. The code was promulgated on 4 September and forms part of the electoral rules governing political parties and candidates.
The code requires political parties and candidates to check information before sharing it and to take responsibility for material published on their behalf. It also requires false or misleading information to be publicly corrected within 36 hours after parties or candidates become aware of it. The rules address deceptive practices including fake accounts, bot networks, coordinated inauthentic behaviour, doxing and cyberbullying. AI-generated or synthetic content must also be clearly labelled before distribution.
These measures come as the role of social media in South African political communication continues to grow. According to the voter participation information cited by ISS, television remains the most frequently identified source of election information, with 71% of respondents relying on it. Radio follows at 38%, while 23% identify social media as a source of election-related information. The social-media figure represents an increase from 8% in 2021.
The changing information environment means that public opinion can develop through a mixture of traditional journalism, political campaigning and online conversations. A political claim may begin at a rally, appear in a news report and then circulate through WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, TikTok videos or other platforms. During that process, the original context can be lost or altered.
The issue becomes particularly important at local level. The 2026 election is not simply a national political contest. Municipal elections concern issues that directly affect communities, including water, electricity, roads, refuse collection, local economic development and municipal administration.
The ISS report notes that Electoral Commission chairperson Mosotho Moepya has warned that disinformation during the 2026 elections could become increasingly focused on individual wards and communities. Generative artificial intelligence and hyper-local campaigning may make this material more targeted.
This means voters could encounter claims specifically designed to appeal to their immediate local concerns. A false message about a voting station, for example, could have a direct effect on whether residents participate. Similarly, fabricated information about candidate conduct, election procedures or political parties could influence perceptions before voters have an opportunity to establish whether the claims are accurate.
The Electoral Commission’s new rules attempt to address some of these risks while preserving legitimate political debate. The government says the code does not prohibit lawful criticism, opinion, commentary, fair reporting, satire, parody or legitimate democratic debate.
That distinction is important because political elections depend on the ability of citizens to criticise those seeking public office. Voters need access to competing views, arguments and evidence. The challenge is separating legitimate disagreement from deliberately fabricated information intended to deceive.
The Commission has also designated Real411 as a platform for reporting suspected election-related disinformation. Individuals, organisations, political parties and candidates can report suspected cases involving the electoral process, contestants, the IEC or its staff.
The broader issue is therefore not simply whether false information exists. Misinformation and disinformation have different meanings. Misinformation generally refers to false information shared without an intention to deceive, while disinformation involves false or misleading information distributed deliberately to mislead. The distinction can be difficult to establish in rapidly moving online conversations.
Artificial intelligence adds another layer to the problem. Modern tools can generate realistic images, audio and video, making it increasingly difficult for ordinary users to determine whether material is authentic. The IEC has warned voters about manipulated or AI-generated content, fake accounts and fabricated election information.
South Africa’s experience also shows why public trust matters. Elections require citizens to have confidence not only in voting procedures but also in the information surrounding those procedures. If voters receive contradictory claims about registration, voting stations, ballot procedures or election results, uncertainty can spread quickly.
The government has said the IEC’s disinformation code is intended to strengthen electoral integrity and promote free, fair and orderly elections. It applies to election-related communication both online and offline, including paid and unpaid communication involving political parties and candidates.
At the same time, the responsibility for information quality does not rest exclusively with the Electoral Commission. Political parties, candidates, journalists, technology companies, civil society groups and voters all play roles in determining what information reaches the public and how it is interpreted.
For voters, the latest survey findings highlight the importance of verification. The fact that only 18% regularly verify election information before sharing it indicates a gap between the volume of political information available and the habits used to assess it.
Traditional media remains important in this environment. Television and radio continue to reach large audiences, while digital platforms provide speed, interactivity and highly targeted communication. Rather than replacing traditional media, social media is increasingly operating alongside it, creating a complicated information ecosystem.
South Africa’s upcoming local elections therefore present a test not only for political parties and electoral institutions but also for the country’s wider information culture. Voters will encounter more candidates, more campaign messages and increasingly sophisticated digital content. The ability to distinguish verified information from false or manipulated claims will remain an important part of participation.
The latest public-opinion findings do not indicate how individual voters will ultimately respond to particular political parties or candidates. Instead, they identify an information challenge that cuts across the political spectrum: many voters are less confident in their ability to recognise fake news than they were in 2023, while relatively few say they routinely verify election-related material before sharing it.
As the 4 November election approaches, the quality of public information will consequently become an increasingly important part of the democratic process. The new IEC code establishes rules for political actors, while initiatives such as Real411 provide mechanisms for reporting suspected disinformation. Ultimately, however, the information environment also depends on how carefully citizens, political organisations and media platforms handle claims before they are amplified.
The central public-opinion issue emerging from the latest reporting is therefore clear: South Africans are entering a major election with declining confidence in their ability to identify fake news, while political communication is becoming increasingly digital, localised and potentially influenced by artificial intelligence. The response will involve regulation, journalism, fact-checking, political accountability and individual verification of information before it is accepted or shared.
