The impact of social media and the rise of far-right extremism in South Africa

Emerging trends of societal polarisation and far-right ideologies on social media platforms

One of the earliest uses of Big Tech social media platforms to sow racial divisions in South Africa can be traced back to 2016 and 2017. Bell Pottinger, a British multinational public relations firm known for its controversial work and clientele, became the centre of a racial scandal. Bell Pottinger was contracted by Oak Bay Capital (an investment firm) to repair the Gupta family’s image after they were embroiled in a corruption saga concerning their close connections with former South African President Jacob Zuma.44. “The Guptas and their links to South Africa’s Jacob Zuma,” BBC News, February 14, 2018, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22513410. The corruption allegations revolved around the family exercising undue influence over Zuma’s administration to “win contracts and influence political appointments”.55. Chris Johnston. “The PR firm Bell Pottinger failed in ‘race hate’ campaign,” BBC News, September 4, 2017, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41145883. Bell Pottinger launched a racially charged campaign to redirect attention, and it  fuelled racial tensions.66. “Save SA demands full disclosure form #Bell Pottinger,” IOL, July 6, 2017, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.iol.co.za/news/save-sa-demands-full-disclosure-from-bellpottinger-10167363.

In May 2017, emails were leaked which connected Bell Pottinger, the Zumas and the Guptas to the concoction of the race-baiting distraction campaign utilising social media.77. Alex Eliseev, “The Gupta scandal: how a British PR firm came unstuck in South Africa,” The New Statesman, July 20, 2017, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/07/gupta-scandal-how-british-pr-firm-came-unstuck-south-africa. Additionally, the leaked emails revealed that the firm paid X (formerly Twitter) users to “troll journalists and spread propaganda”. ^{88. Alex Eliseev, “The Gupta scandal.”}

The campaign injected extremist behaviours and tendencies into South Africa’s political landscape. And social media fuelled daily debates about white monopoly capital, polarising society further. Bell Pottinger also undermined and misled any journalists questioning the integrity of its actions. The internet trolls and bots employed by Bell Pottinger established and organised themselves in online spaces in what has now been referred to as the radical economic transformation (RET) brigade and pro-Zuma supporters.

Pro-Zuma supporters and the RET brigade were again called into action in 2021, when civil unrest swept across the country, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. The catalyst for the unrest was the pending arrest and imprisonment of Jacob Zuma.99. Clayton Hazvinei Vhumbunu, “The July 2021 Protests and Socio-political Unrest in South Africa,” Accord, December 10, 2021, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/the-july-2021-protests-and-socio-political-unrest-in-south-africa/. In the months preceding this event,  Mr. Zuma flouted the Constitutional Court of South Africa’s order to comply with a summons ordering him to appear before the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector, including Organs of State. In conjunction with Mr. Zuma’s general discourteous attitude toward the Court and its processes, this defiance culminated in his sentence to imprisonment for 15 months. This sparked widespread outrage amongst his large group of loyal supporters, arguably leading to the July 2021 unrest.

The unrest from 9 to 17 July 2021 was characterised by a wave of riots, looting, arson and murder, largely affecting the KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng provinces.1010. Noluthando Phungula, “Understanding the Dynamics of South Africa’s July 2021 Social Unrest,” Journal of Nation-building & Policy Studies, vol. 8, no. 1 (2024): 71-87, pg 72. It was a period of clear and total collapse of law and order.1111. Mary de Haas, “ Beyond protest: violence, looting and anarchy,” in Heidi Brooks, Protest in South Africa: Rejection, Reassertion, Reclamation (Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection - MISTRA, 2023). What began as a pillaging of shops and businesses quickly escalated into severe social violence.1212. Ngogi Emmanuel Mahaye, Sibongamandla Silindokuhle Dlomo and Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani, “Impact of Public Protests on Education System: A Case of 2021 Political Unrest in South Africa,” in International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, vol.12, no. 2 (2023): 348-57, pg 348. Approximately 350 people in KwaZulu-Natal lost their lives, with scholars calling it “the worst public unrest since the end of the apartheid regime.’’1313. Noluthando Phungula, “Understanding the Dynamics of South Africa’s July 2021 Social Unrest,” in Journal of Nation-building & Policy Studies, vol. 8, no. 1 (2024): 71-87, pg.73.

Despite lasting only nine days, the socio-political unrest during the riots culminated in large-scale destruction, the effects of which are still felt years later. The South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) estimated that the damage to property amounted to R50 billion (equivalent to US$ 3.4 billion).1414. Clayton Hazvinei Vhumbunu, “The July 2021 Protests and Socio-political Unrest in South Africa,” Accord, December 10, 2021, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/the-july-2021-protests-and-socio-political-unrest-in-south-africa/.

The unrest was fuelled by growing discontent on social media. Supporters of Jacob Zuma coined, inter alia, the hashtags #FreeJacobZuma and #ShutdownKZN to advocate for a country-wide shutdown pending the former president’s release.1515. Lizette Lancaster, “South Africa’s Unrest or an Attempted Insurrection? Violence in July,” in Protest, vol. 2, no. 1 (2022): 114-136, pg. 123. In January 2024, the South African Human Rights Commission’s (SAHRC) report confirmed the role of social media in the exacerbation of tensions.1616. South African Human Rights Commission, July’s People: The National Investigative Hearing Report into the July 2021 Unrest in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, 2024, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/JULY%20UNREST%20REPORT%20FINAL_29%20JAN%202024.pdf.

The incitement to violence was propelled by the spread of disinformation. Jacob Zuma’s daughter, Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, was one of the key instigators of the unrest. She posted outdated images on X as evidence of the “current” unrest, knowing that Zuma’s supporters would have an emotional reaction thereto.1717. Vhonani Petla, “Information Disorders and Civil Unrest: An Analysis of the July 2021 Unrest in South Africa,” in Digital Policy Studies, vol. 2 no.1 (2023): 23-31, pg. 28.

It is of great concern that such violent incitement and disinformation could be disseminated without abatement.

In 2023, in response to these incidents, the rise in disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and a growing concern about the spread of hate speech and xenophobia on social media platforms, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) together with Global Witness ran a series of investigations into the ability of social media corporations to detect hate speech, incitement to violence and election disinformation within the cultural and language context of South Africa.

We tested Facebook, Twitter (X), Google (YouTube) and TikTok by submitting hate-filled, xenophobic, misogynistic and election-related disinformation that violated all of those platforms’ community standards in the form of advertisements, which were subsequently removed by us before publication.

The findings of our investigations demonstrated that these platforms were unable to detect hate speech, incitements to violence and disinformation and that they did not adequately moderate content within the cultural and language context of South Africa.

The most recent and concerning incident of leveraging disinformation to polarise South African society on racial grounds occurred after Donald Trump took office in January 2025.

On 23 January 2025, the President of South Africa signed into law the Expropriation Act, which gives effect to section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and repeals the pre-democracy Expropriation Act of 1975. The central purpose of the property clause in the Constitution and the new Expropriation Act is to redress past inequalities in land ownership and specifically address dispossession of land of the black majority during colonisation and Apartheid. Apartheid laws such as the Native Land Act of 1913 limited black ownership of land to 7 percent. The Expropriation Act followed an extensive constitutional process before being signed, which included an extensive public consultation process, and has been seen as a tool for the government to acquire land for redistribution and determine who has expropriation powers.1818. Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, section 2.

There have been many critics of the Expropriation Act, including AfriForum, a non-profit organisation founded to advocate for the interests of white Afrikaners. On 30 January 2025, the organisation stated publicly that it will launch an international campaign to influence international stakeholders about their perceived persecution of white Afrikaners in South Africa and mobilise opposition abroad to the threats against their property rights.

Three days after releasing this public statement, Donald Trump tweeted the following:

South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY. It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act. Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!

Donald Trump later kept to this threat and cut off all financial aid to South Africa.

The timing of AfriForum’s threats and the consequences of what transpired thereafter may point directly to them spreading false or misleading information about the new Expropriation Act, claiming that it will result in the dispossession of land of white South Africans. This claim is not only entirely untrue but also disregards the provisions of the Expropriation Act itself, which clearly states that land currently being utilized will not be expropriated. This misleading narrative is also in direct contradiction with the South African Constitution, which seeks to address historical land injustices and promote equity, rather than fostering divisions based on race.

AfriForum has also in the past spread disinformation on killings on white farms, which have also been recklessly quoted by the United States (US) administration to say that white Afrikaner farmers are under attack in South Africa and, therefore, should qualify for asylum in the US. In relation to farms and agricultural land holdings, the black majority only owns 5% of the land, while the white minority owns 72% of the land.1919. Rural Development and Land Reform Department, Republic of South Africa, Land Audit Report, 2017. Phase II: Private land ownership by race, gender and nationality, 2017, pg. 7, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201802/landauditreport13feb2018.pdf. There are also approximately 20,000 murders committed in South Africa per year, and on average, 50 of them are white farmers.2020. Tom Cooks, “Why Trump is reacting to the Expropriation Act,” Business Day, February 3, 2025, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2025-02-03-why-trump-is-reacting-to-the-expropriation-act/. There is no evidence of targeted violence against white farmers in order to take over their land.

It is unsurprising that the US President would use a platform of an ally, Elon Musk, to spread disinformation. Musk has also spread disinformation on his social media platform, where he falsely stated that the South African government is perpetuating a “genocide of white people”.2121. Mithil Aggarwal, “How a land law sparked Elon Musk’s accusations of ‘genocide’ against his home country,” NBC News, February 10, 2025, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/south-africa-racist-white-farmers-trump-musk-genocide-ramaphosa-rcna190749. X therefore unashamedly spreads false and misleading information, without fact checking, that has had real life consequences for the South African people who are reliant on US financial aid.

Tech accountability within the South African legal framework

Currently, there is no legislation that addresses Big Tech’s accountability for harms caused to South African users on their social media platforms.

The South African Constitution is one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. It gives rise to many justiciable civil and political rights, as well as socioeconomic rights. Everyone has a right to equality and non-discrimination (section 9) and the right to human dignity (section 10).

The Constitution also guarantees free speech (section 16), but it is limited to the extent that it does not amount to hate speech based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion or imminent incitements to violence. While these constitutional provisions grant recourse to victims of online abuse that has real-life consequences, these protections allow legal action to be taken against the one who posted online hate and incitement to violence, and not the tech platforms that enable, amplify and recommend hateful content on their platforms.

Consumer protection legislation, however, may provide some recourse against Big Tech corporations. Still, to date, no cases have been brought before the South African courts against Big Tech corporations to challenge the defective design of their platforms and the resultant harms they expose South African users to.

South Africa also lacks a policy framework regulating Big Tech in relation to social media and disinformation.

The lack of a legislative and policy framework similar to the European Union’s Digital Services Act and Digital Marketing Act, which provide wide-ranging accountability and transparency measures, is a cause for concern because it leaves South African users of social media platforms vulnerable to online harms. This can influence divisive political narratives and sow racial divisions that could render the gains made post-apartheid fruitless.

Conclusion

The three incidents described in this article provide an overarching view of the use of disinformation, misinformation and incitement of violence in South Africa over the past decade. Other cases, such as the 2019 and 2024 national elections and xenophobic attacks, are not analysed here but are equally important. Big Tech corporations have created platforms where ordinary citizens, business leaders, politicians and government leaders can congregate during important political, economic and social events. Still, their unchecked power in amplifying and recommending disinformation and hatred online is intrinsically linked to the outcome of these events. The harmful content shared has real-life consequences that have often included violence. The South African legislature and executive have a burden to ensure that there are policies and a legislative framework to obligate Big Tech to protect human life and human rights.