Opaque, last-minute polls are narrative weapons. In the final stretch before an election, a well-timed, poorly sourced poll can shift turnout, trigger tactical voting and drown out the real issues. Local government elections are supposed to be about service delivery, potholes, water pressures and ward accountability. But when headlines are hijacked by anonymous data, the public conversation veers off course.
This is not a theoretical problem. Last year, ActionSA lodged a complaint after a poll with no clear sponsor or methodologies was published in a major national news platform. The Press Ombud ruled that Rapport breached the Press Code, but the damage was done. The poll shaped perceptions, drove coverage and forced parties to respond to a number no-one could verify. That moment exposed a weakness in our electoral system. We have no rules for pre-election polling, no oversight and no consequences for manipulation.
Now, Action SA has tabled a bill to fix that. The proposal seeks to define and regulate political opinion polls, requiring pollsters above a clear threshold to register, disclose core methodology and sponsors, and submit to an oversight mechanism. It also proposes a pre-election publication blackout for seven days and creates offences with fines and criminal penalties for noncompliance, while delegating enforcement powers to a body connected to the Electoral Commission SA.
It’s a commendable proposal, sure, but it is not without risks. How do we raise the cost of manipulation without turning the state into a censor? How will the law define a “political opinion poll”, minimum sample size, or spending threshold? Who governs the regular or how is independence guaranteed? What counts as publication in the social media era? How will cross-border online pollsters be addressed?
These are not trivial questions. They strike at the heart of policy architecture in a democratic society. Get the design wrong and you end up with two failures. First, cheapened noise that rewards manipulators, or a regulatory cudgel that chills research, muzzles civic actors and hands winners a new way to punish dissent. A politicised ombud could become a tool for silencing inconvenient truths. And a blanket ban on publication risks creating an information vacuum filled by leaks and speculation.
Still, doing nothing is not an option. The current free-for-all rewards bad actors and punishes transparency. It leaves editors exposed, voters misled and parties to respond to ghost numbers.
So what’s the fix? Start with disclosure. Every poll should carry metadata. Who commissioned it, how it was conducted, sample size, margin of error and link to full methodology. That alone would raise the bar for credibility and give editors tools to vet what they publish.
Next, apply registration and oversight only to large-scale polls, those above a clear sample size or budget threshold. That protects small researchers and civic groups from being buried in red tape.
If a blackout is necessary, make it short (48-72 hours), narrowly defined and paired with sanctions targeted at anonymous leaks, not legitimate research.
Finally, pilot the reforms for one election cycle and measure impact. Publish the findings. Adjust the law.
We don’t need censorship. We need clarity. We don’t need to silence the polls. We need to make them legible, accountable and trustworthy. If MPs get this right they will restore integrity to the campaign trail and give voters the space to focus on what really matters. If not, the noise will only get cheaper and nastier.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.