In any democracy, the integrity of our electoral process is non‑negotiable. In protecting this integrity, we must always be responsive to new developments and threats.
That is precisely why ActionSA’s call to impose either criminal penalties or a fine on pollsters who publish political opinion poll 7 days before election day is not only defensible it is necessary. Some critics will talk of censorship or overreach but the proposal addresses a real threat to our democracy: growing disinformation. What this proposal seeks do to is protect the voting public’s right to transparent and accurate information to make informed voting choices based on facts, not fiction.
First, let’s consider the core concern: publishing political opinion polls in the final week before an election has an outsized, disproportionate impact on voters. Many voters, especially those who are undecided or marginalised, may be swayed not by policy or performance, but simply by perceived momentum. A poll suggesting that one party is surging could induce a band wagon effect conversely, negative polling may suppress voter turnout, particularly among supporters of smaller or newer parties.
ActionSA recognises that last‑minute so called manipulative “push polling” can change the course of the election not on merit or ideas but on manufactured perceptions. Many democracies recognize the danger and have such bans, in Italy it’s 14 days before election day while in Portugal its 5 days.
Second, this is about protecting the democratic field from distortions and allow voters a period of more genuine reflection. In South Africa, where many voters are still forming political allegiances and where media access and literacy vary widely across communities, last‑minute polling can amount to a kind of unfair advantage.
A poll released right before a vote can cascade through social media, news outlets and community conversations. That noise can drown out substantive debate about issues like job creation, service delivery, corruption and instead anchor the campaign on “who’s up”, not “who’s done”. ActionSA’s stance is that our democracy should not be skewed by the timing of speculation but rather genuine reflection on policy offerings and proposals
Third, the proposal signals accountability and trust. If entities wish to publish polling in the run‑up to elections, then let them do so but under stricter standards, transparency and timing rules. Their new Bill also clearly stipulates that all polls must publish what methodologies are used and who sponsors the poll giving the voters the information they need to make an informed choice. By advocating for criminal consequences in extreme cases (i.e., publishing within 7 days before an election or failing to disclose key information ).
ActionSA shows it is serious about enforcement. It is saying: We will not allow fuzzy data, partisan timing or unscrupulous foreign actors to hijack the will of the people. In an era of disinformation, this is a regrouping of democratic norms: yes, you may opine but do so based on data and don’t try to influence at the eleventh hour in a way that tilts the playing field.
This is in line with international norms where countries such as, Brazil, Canada and France to name a few all have such mandatory disclosures in place and similar accountability measures such as fines, prison times or even bans on entities that publish fake political opinion polling.
Fourth, ActionSA’s proposal is consistent with protecting smaller parties and promoting fairness. In a system dominated by large parties funded by billions in state support and legacy structures, smaller parties often struggle for visibility.
If a massive, untrustworthy political opinion poll comes out at the last moment saying “Party X collapses, Party Y surges”, then resources shift, donors adjust, media coverage re‑allocates and the smaller players lose not just momentum but viability. By restricting that window, ActionSA helps ensure new voices and voices from historically excluded communities can compete on the basis of ideas, not last‑minute shockwaves.
Some critics will argue this is heavy‑handed. But this misses the point: This legislation promotes transparency and accountability two key ingredients needed for our democracy to throve. They will claim it violates freedom of expression or the press. But freedom of expression is never absolute especially when other democratic goods are at stake.
There is proof of concept from around the world that South Africa’s unregulated wild west of opinion polling is an anomaly not the norm. The electoral process is a cornerstone of democracy and has to be safeguarded. We already limit certain practices (for example, campaign financing rules, advertising restrictions close to elections, rules around who can vote and when). Preventing manipulative political opinion polling in the last week is of the same family.
Moreover, the proposed penalty of up to 2 years in prison or an equivalent fine is a strong deterrent, but it sends the right message: this isn’t about gagging debate it’s about establishing boundaries for fair competition. Pollsters and research organisations are free to publish earlier but when the clock ticks down to the week of an election, the potential for distortion becomes too great and the public interest justifies regulation.
It’s important to highlight that ActionSA isn’t advocating for banning political opinion polling entirely, just limiting it in the 7 days before an election, That nuance is vital. Genuine political opinion polls serve a legitimate function in gauging public mood, guiding debate and offering accountability. But their misuse as tactical weapons in the final days of campaigns must be addressed. ActionSA’s approach preserves the core utility of political opinion polling but draws a line where the risks outweigh the benefits.
Finally, the move underscores ActionSA’s broader positioning as a party serious about reform and the fairness of political contestation. In a climate where voter trust is under pressure, disinformation on the rise and political contestation getting ever fiercer political parties must show they’re not just jockeying for power but actively strengthening democratic practices.
By championing this proposal, ActionSA sets itself apart from parties content to operate within the current system’s grey zones. It says: We’re willing to change the rules because the old rules enable manipulation. The principle is sound: end‐game polling needs regulation.
In conclusion, while some will dismiss ActionSA’s proposal , it is in fact a targeted, principled intervention to shore up the democratic process. The real risk is that unregulated last‑minute polling becomes a tool for disinformation rather than genuine data sharing and informing of voters. If democracy means anything, it means giving voters a fair chance to decide based on substance, not shockwaves. ActionSA understands that and is willing to act. That deserves respect, not reflexive dismissal.
ActionSA’s Polling Proposal Protects Democracy, Not Restrict It
In any democracy, the integrity of our electoral process is non‑negotiable. In protecting this integrity, we must always be responsive to new developments and threats.
That is precisely why ActionSA’s call to impose either criminal penalties or a fine on pollsters who publish political opinion poll 7 days before election day is not only defensible it is necessary. Some critics will talk of censorship or overreach but the proposal addresses a real threat to our democracy: growing disinformation. What this proposal seeks do to is protect the voting public’s right to transparent and accurate information to make informed voting choices based on facts, not fiction.
First, let’s consider the core concern: publishing political opinion polls in the final week before an election has an outsized, disproportionate impact on voters. Many voters, especially those who are undecided or marginalised, may be swayed not by policy or performance, but simply by perceived momentum. A poll suggesting that one party is surging could induce a band wagon effect conversely, negative polling may suppress voter turnout, particularly among supporters of smaller or newer parties.
ActionSA recognises that last‑minute so called manipulative “push polling” can change the course of the election not on merit or ideas but on manufactured perceptions. Many democracies recognize the danger and have such bans, in Italy it’s 14 days before election day while in Portugal its 5 days.
Second, this is about protecting the democratic field from distortions and allow voters a period of more genuine reflection. In South Africa, where many voters are still forming political allegiances and where media access and literacy vary widely across communities, last‑minute polling can amount to a kind of unfair advantage.
A poll released right before a vote can cascade through social media, news outlets and community conversations. That noise can drown out substantive debate about issues like job creation, service delivery, corruption and instead anchor the campaign on “who’s up”, not “who’s done”. ActionSA’s stance is that our democracy should not be skewed by the timing of speculation but rather genuine reflection on policy offerings and proposals
Third, the proposal signals accountability and trust. If entities wish to publish polling in the run‑up to elections, then let them do so but under stricter standards, transparency and timing rules. Their new Bill also clearly stipulates that all polls must publish what methodologies are used and who sponsors the poll giving the voters the information they need to make an informed choice. By advocating for criminal consequences in extreme cases (i.e., publishing within 7 days before an election or failing to disclose key information ).
ActionSA shows it is serious about enforcement. It is saying: We will not allow fuzzy data, partisan timing or unscrupulous foreign actors to hijack the will of the people. In an era of disinformation, this is a regrouping of democratic norms: yes, you may opine but do so based on data and don’t try to influence at the eleventh hour in a way that tilts the playing field.
This is in line with international norms where countries such as, Brazil, Canada and France to name a few all have such mandatory disclosures in place and similar accountability measures such as fines, prison times or even bans on entities that publish fake political opinion polling.
Fourth, ActionSA’s proposal is consistent with protecting smaller parties and promoting fairness. In a system dominated by large parties funded by billions in state support and legacy structures, smaller parties often struggle for visibility.
If a massive, untrustworthy political opinion poll comes out at the last moment saying “Party X collapses, Party Y surges”, then resources shift, donors adjust, media coverage re‑allocates and the smaller players lose not just momentum but viability. By restricting that window, ActionSA helps ensure new voices and voices from historically excluded communities can compete on the basis of ideas, not last‑minute shockwaves.
Some critics will argue this is heavy‑handed. But this misses the point: This legislation promotes transparency and accountability two key ingredients needed for our democracy to throve. They will claim it violates freedom of expression or the press. But freedom of expression is never absolute especially when other democratic goods are at stake.
There is proof of concept from around the world that South Africa’s unregulated wild west of opinion polling is an anomaly not the norm. The electoral process is a cornerstone of democracy and has to be safeguarded. We already limit certain practices (for example, campaign financing rules, advertising restrictions close to elections, rules around who can vote and when). Preventing manipulative political opinion polling in the last week is of the same family.
Moreover, the proposed penalty of up to 2 years in prison or an equivalent fine is a strong deterrent, but it sends the right message: this isn’t about gagging debate it’s about establishing boundaries for fair competition. Pollsters and research organisations are free to publish earlier but when the clock ticks down to the week of an election, the potential for distortion becomes too great and the public interest justifies regulation.
It’s important to highlight that ActionSA isn’t advocating for banning political opinion polling entirely, just limiting it in the 7 days before an election, That nuance is vital. Genuine political opinion polls serve a legitimate function in gauging public mood, guiding debate and offering accountability. But their misuse as tactical weapons in the final days of campaigns must be addressed. ActionSA’s approach preserves the core utility of political opinion polling but draws a line where the risks outweigh the benefits.
Finally, the move underscores ActionSA’s broader positioning as a party serious about reform and the fairness of political contestation. In a climate where voter trust is under pressure, disinformation on the rise and political contestation getting ever fiercer political parties must show they’re not just jockeying for power but actively strengthening democratic practices.
By championing this proposal, ActionSA sets itself apart from parties content to operate within the current system’s grey zones. It says: We’re willing to change the rules because the old rules enable manipulation. The principle is sound: end‐game polling needs regulation.
In conclusion, while some will dismiss ActionSA’s proposal , it is in fact a targeted, principled intervention to shore up the democratic process. The real risk is that unregulated last‑minute polling becomes a tool for disinformation rather than genuine data sharing and informing of voters. If democracy means anything, it means giving voters a fair chance to decide based on substance, not shockwaves. ActionSA understands that and is willing to act. That deserves respect, not reflexive dismissal.