The response to ActionSA’s recently tabled Election Integrity Bill, which seeks to introduce long-overdue regulation to South Africa’s polling industry, is telling. Despite broad acceptance of the risks that come with an unregulated polling free-for-all, the reaction from certain polling firms, their sponsors and aligned media outlets was defensive, even hostile.
This begs the question: why would anyone oppose the idea that a poll should disclose its sample size, methodology and sponsor? The answer is simple. Only those with something to hide would resist such transparency, particularly those benefiting from the incestuous relationships between polling companies, media outlets and political parties.
Across the globe, democracies recognise the dangers of unregulated polling. Angola, Morocco and Mozambique ban the publication of polls in the 30 days before an election. Chile, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Singapore and Zambia impose a two-week blackout before voters cast their ballots.
More than a third of countries have laws regulating polling and an oversight body to enforce them. In the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, pollsters must disclose who conducted and funded the poll, when it was done, its sample size, methodology and margin of error. These rules exist because the world understands a simple truth that polls shape perceptions and perceptions shape elections. South Africa must recognise this too.
Regulation is not a cure-all, and South Africans rightly distrust adding layers of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome state. But just as political donations can distort democracy, so too can unregulated polling. In an era where voters see “momentum” and “growth” as indicators of electoral viability, pollsters wield an obvious power to influence outcomes.
This is especially true in South Africa’s proportional representation system, where many voters, questioning whether their individual vote matters, gravitate toward parties perceived to be “gaining ground.” The problem is amplified by the reach of digital media, where poll results are shared, clipped, and memed into narratives of inevitability. In such an environment, even subtle biases in polling or selective publication can tip the scales of public perception.
This is not to say that all polling companies are corrupt or politically compromised. Many operate professionally and with integrity. But blind faith in any institution capable of shaping voter sentiment in a young democracy is reckless.
A recent case illustrates exactly why regulation is needed. Before the 2024 elections, Rapport published an anonymous poll suggesting the DA was neck-and-neck with the ANC. The source of the poll was concealed, but the DA immediately weaponised the results on social media to promote the narrative that it alone could challenge the ruling party.
ActionSA lodged a complaint with the Press Ombudsman, who ruled that withholding the poll’s origin breached the press code. It later emerged that the DA itself had conducted the poll, a fact Rapport claimed it was under no obligation to disclose. The result was clear: voters were misled about the poll’s independence.
It’s worth connecting the dots here. The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) is deeply intertwined with the DA, employing or being led by several of its senior figures, including Helen Zille herself. The IRR’s own spokesperson served as the DA’s media manager in Gauteng. Despite this, the organisation regularly sponsors and publishes polls it claims are independent.
The Social Research Foundation (SRF) presents another example. Led by former IRR CEO Frans Cronje, the SRF’s polls also tend to inflate DA support. Both the IRR and SRF employ Victory Research to conduct some of their polling. The firm’s directors include Gareth van Onselen, the DA’s former Chief of Staff and Director of Communications, and Johan van den Berg, the DA’s current Head of Polling. When those responsible for polling also manage a party’s internal data operations, the conflict of interest is not hypothetical but deeply entrenched.
These entities defend themselves by pointing out that their projections were “close” to final results. But closer scrutiny tells another story: the SRF projected 31.2% for the DA, and the IRR projected 26.1%. The DA ultimately received 21.8%. Even their supposed “accuracy” overstated the party’s strength, reinforcing a manufactured sense of growth and momentum that likely influenced undecided voters. Repeated, unregulated polling — amplified by mainstream and social media — can create an illusion of inevitability. It doesn’t simply reflect political reality; it constructs it.
The Election Integrity Bill is not an attack on pollsters; it is a defence of democracy. It proposes a pre-election blackout period during which no polls may be published, ensuring that voter choice is driven by conviction, not manipulation. It also introduces a registration and disclosure system requiring pollsters to publish key details — sponsor, methodology, sample size, and margin of error — alongside every result. These simple measures will empower South Africans to judge for themselves how much weight to give to a poll’s findings.
It is revealing that those who benefit most from opacity are the loudest opponents of reform. Their outrage only underscores the need for it. Polling is not just about numbers. It is about narrative. And when narratives can be bought, democracy can be sold. The Election Integrity Bill seeks to restore trust by ensuring that the numbers shaping public debate are honest, transparent, and accountable.
Because no one acting in good faith would fear transparency.
The Case For A Regulated Polling Industry
The response to ActionSA’s recently tabled Election Integrity Bill, which seeks to introduce long-overdue regulation to South Africa’s polling industry, is telling. Despite broad acceptance of the risks that come with an unregulated polling free-for-all, the reaction from certain polling firms, their sponsors and aligned media outlets was defensive, even hostile.
This begs the question: why would anyone oppose the idea that a poll should disclose its sample size, methodology and sponsor? The answer is simple. Only those with something to hide would resist such transparency, particularly those benefiting from the incestuous relationships between polling companies, media outlets and political parties.
Across the globe, democracies recognise the dangers of unregulated polling. Angola, Morocco and Mozambique ban the publication of polls in the 30 days before an election. Chile, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Singapore and Zambia impose a two-week blackout before voters cast their ballots.
More than a third of countries have laws regulating polling and an oversight body to enforce them. In the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, pollsters must disclose who conducted and funded the poll, when it was done, its sample size, methodology and margin of error. These rules exist because the world understands a simple truth that polls shape perceptions and perceptions shape elections. South Africa must recognise this too.
Regulation is not a cure-all, and South Africans rightly distrust adding layers of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome state. But just as political donations can distort democracy, so too can unregulated polling. In an era where voters see “momentum” and “growth” as indicators of electoral viability, pollsters wield an obvious power to influence outcomes.
This is especially true in South Africa’s proportional representation system, where many voters, questioning whether their individual vote matters, gravitate toward parties perceived to be “gaining ground.” The problem is amplified by the reach of digital media, where poll results are shared, clipped, and memed into narratives of inevitability. In such an environment, even subtle biases in polling or selective publication can tip the scales of public perception.
This is not to say that all polling companies are corrupt or politically compromised. Many operate professionally and with integrity. But blind faith in any institution capable of shaping voter sentiment in a young democracy is reckless.
A recent case illustrates exactly why regulation is needed. Before the 2024 elections, Rapport published an anonymous poll suggesting the DA was neck-and-neck with the ANC. The source of the poll was concealed, but the DA immediately weaponised the results on social media to promote the narrative that it alone could challenge the ruling party.
ActionSA lodged a complaint with the Press Ombudsman, who ruled that withholding the poll’s origin breached the press code. It later emerged that the DA itself had conducted the poll, a fact Rapport claimed it was under no obligation to disclose. The result was clear: voters were misled about the poll’s independence.
It’s worth connecting the dots here. The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) is deeply intertwined with the DA, employing or being led by several of its senior figures, including Helen Zille herself. The IRR’s own spokesperson served as the DA’s media manager in Gauteng. Despite this, the organisation regularly sponsors and publishes polls it claims are independent.
The Social Research Foundation (SRF) presents another example. Led by former IRR CEO Frans Cronje, the SRF’s polls also tend to inflate DA support. Both the IRR and SRF employ Victory Research to conduct some of their polling. The firm’s directors include Gareth van Onselen, the DA’s former Chief of Staff and Director of Communications, and Johan van den Berg, the DA’s current Head of Polling. When those responsible for polling also manage a party’s internal data operations, the conflict of interest is not hypothetical but deeply entrenched.
These entities defend themselves by pointing out that their projections were “close” to final results. But closer scrutiny tells another story: the SRF projected 31.2% for the DA, and the IRR projected 26.1%. The DA ultimately received 21.8%. Even their supposed “accuracy” overstated the party’s strength, reinforcing a manufactured sense of growth and momentum that likely influenced undecided voters. Repeated, unregulated polling — amplified by mainstream and social media — can create an illusion of inevitability. It doesn’t simply reflect political reality; it constructs it.
The Election Integrity Bill is not an attack on pollsters; it is a defence of democracy. It proposes a pre-election blackout period during which no polls may be published, ensuring that voter choice is driven by conviction, not manipulation. It also introduces a registration and disclosure system requiring pollsters to publish key details — sponsor, methodology, sample size, and margin of error — alongside every result. These simple measures will empower South Africans to judge for themselves how much weight to give to a poll’s findings.
It is revealing that those who benefit most from opacity are the loudest opponents of reform. Their outrage only underscores the need for it. Polling is not just about numbers. It is about narrative. And when narratives can be bought, democracy can be sold. The Election Integrity Bill seeks to restore trust by ensuring that the numbers shaping public debate are honest, transparent, and accountable.
Because no one acting in good faith would fear transparency.