The Electoral Commission of South Africa has introduced a new Disinformation Code to safeguard the integrity of the upcoming local government elections on November 4. The code requires political parties and candidates to verify information before distributing it, publicly correct false or misleading material within 36 hours, avoid fake accounts and bot networks, label AI-generated content, and make political advertising identifiable. This move aims to prevent the spread of false information that could interfere with the electoral process.
The new code is a response to the changing information environment, where false information can spread quickly through social media and artificial intelligence. A convincing fabrication no longer requires a sophisticated political machine, but rather a phone, an audience, and an algorithm willing to reward attention-grabbing content. The Electoral Commission's intervention is crucial in protecting the integrity of the election, but it must be balanced with the need to tolerate vigorous criticism and debate.
The South African law already recognises that electoral freedom does not mean a licence to manufacture false information. However, the Constitutional Court has been cautious not to allow restrictions to suffocate political expression. In a 2015 case, the court had to consider whether a provocative campaign message constituted prohibited false information or protected political opinion. The court's majority held that the message was an expression of comment or opinion rather than "false information" under the Electoral Act.
The more important test for the new code will come at the edges, where the distinction between disinformation and protected political opinion is blurred. For instance, what happens when a party uses accurate figures but presents them in a misleading way? When a candidate makes an allegation based on disputed evidence? When an activist shares information later shown to be wrong but genuinely believed to be true? The regulatory process must be precise and transparent to avoid becoming another political weapon.
Electoral authorities must protect the process from deliberate interference while remaining open to vigorous criticism of their own conduct. Confidence in an electoral commission cannot be secured by making criticism of it softer. Trust is earned when institutions can withstand scrutiny and demonstrate, publicly and convincingly, why false accusations are false. The answer must therefore be precision in intervention and transparency in decision-making.
The new code has the potential to support the integrity of the election, but its legitimacy will depend on maintaining a disciplined boundary between deception that threatens an election and the exaggeration, opinion, criticism, and uncomfortable disagreement that democracy must tolerate. The danger is allowing the category of "disinformation" to expand until it becomes shorthand for speech that is disputed, embarrassing, politically inconvenient, or simply incorrect.
Ultimately, combating electoral disinformation requires a collective effort from citizens, political parties, and technology companies. Citizens carry responsibility to question information they desperately want to believe, particularly when it confirms their existing biases. Political parties must be accountable for the information they disseminate, and technology companies must design platforms that do not reward outrage and virality.
Key points
- The Electoral Commission of South Africa has introduced a new Disinformation Code to protect the integrity of local government elections.
- The code requires political parties and candidates to verify information and correct false material within 36 hours.
- The legitimacy of the code will depend on maintaining a disciplined boundary between deception and protected political opinion.
