Digital Democracy: How South African Youths Are Using Technology to Reshape Electoral Politics in the Country

Abstract

Digital democracy is deliberately used to create a transparent, responsive, participatory, and inclusive democracy. This is especially necessary in South Africa, where youth voter apathy is widespread. Despite overall voter apathy being high across all age groups, youth voter apathy among individuals aged 18 to 35 years is particularly concerning, given that this group constitutes over 60% of the population. Several Civic and Democracy Education (CDE) programmes have been implemented to address voter apathy and educate the youth, especially first-time voters, on democratic rights and voting. Despite the youth being knowledgeable, they are still disengaged from national politics. Instead, they participate in political dialogue on social media, protest or join civic groups to exercise their activism without necessarily voting. This shows that youth are active political participants but do not vote. This is as a result of lack of trust in the government, rising unemployment and tokenised youth contributions. The youth believe they are not being heard and that there is no tangible change, thereby contributing to their lack of motivation in electoral politics. This therefore calls for a different approach that is integration-centred. Where youth agency struggles are excluded, actionable change is rendered void.

Introduction

The advancement of information, communication and technology (ICT) has resulted in significant changes to practical human life. Virtualization and digitalization have comprehensively affected the social, economic, and political environments (Bluhdorn and Butzlaff, 2020). Within the political, particularly democra, there have been many advancements necessitating easy access to information and wider communication across communities and countries (Bastien et al., 2020). These processes all fall under globalization and have minimized the limitations of the global community.  The rapid development has changed democratic patterns, enabling digital democracy to rise. Digital democracy, therefore, offers a new space for community involvement within democratic practices. It has also contributed to the revitalization of democratic government (Bernholz, Landmore, and Reich, 2021; Simon et al. 2017). The relationship between digital technology and democracy, therefore, presents a notable shift within the political sphere.

While concerns about fake news and the creation of echo chambers, often centred on digital technology, have posed a threat to democracy, counterarguments argue that digital technology is a necessary tool that enables democratic change. Research has laid “claim that digital platforms and online fora have the potential to create more trust in public institutions, engage citizens in participatory action, and enhance the quality of democratic decision making” (Fischli and Muldoon, 2024: 819). This therefore creates opportunities for inclusive, open democracy for both government officials and citizens. Digital democracy therefore refers to the incorporation of digital tools or technologies that either allow or enhance existing democratic practices and forms of governance (Fischli and Muldoon, 2024). For most countries digital democracy is purposefully used to create transparent, responsive, participatory and inclusive democracy. This is necessary especially in South Africa where youth voter apathy exists. The digital age offers innovative ways to engage or enable youth voters to participate in political discussions about their future. Questions around digital opportunities for youth political participation have caught the attention of political analysts. Widespread electoral participation has proven to be a healthy form of democratic involvement in any state. As an important mechanism for exercising governance oversight, a low voter turnout threatens the states democracy. Low voter turnout has been attributed to poor voter knowledge or to flawed electoral institutions. In instances where potential voters gain basic knowledge and trust in electoral processes, why is voter turnout still low?

An approach to voter disengagement

South African Local Government Elections (LGE) from 2006 to 2021 show a steady increase in participation among first‑time voters aged 18–19 years, indicating relative voter consistency within this group (see Fig. 1). In contrast, voter turnout among citizens aged 20–29 and 30–39 years (see Fig. 1) reflects a noticeable decline. Notably, turnout among the 20–29 age group decreased from 49% in 2011 to 35% in 2021, signalling a diminishing interest in electoral participation. The LGE’s show a decline in voter participation amongst younger cohorts compared to the older cohorts aged 50-79 and 80+ years, which have remained relatively consistent between 2006 and 2021. The graph also shows a significant decline in the overall voter participation from 58% in 2016 to 46% in 2021, indicating low voter apathy across registered voters. Although the data show voter participation across all age groups, the concern is youth voter participation.

Citizens aged below 35 years constitute over 60% of the population; however, youth defined as individuals aged 18 to 34 years continue to record low voter turnout and remain under‑represented in electoral participation. In response, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) conducts several Civic and Democracy Education (CDE) programmes to promote voter participation. Some of these programmes include the Schools Democracy Programme, which targets pupils in Grade R-12; the Tertiary Institutions Programme, which targets university and TVET college students; the Community Democracy Education, which targets out-of-school youth; the Digital Youth Engagement, which targets the online youth; and the Traditional & Indigenous Communities, which targets rural youth.

Fig.1 showing Voter Participation in the LGE of 2006 - 2021[1]

In addition, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) also carry out CDE programmes targeting communities, some of these CSOs include the Democracy Development Program (DDP), My Vote Counts (MVC) and Equal Education (EE). Despite several CDE programmes focused on stratified youth target audiences, youth voter apathy still exists. But why?

Shortfalls of CDE’s

There is irrefutable evidence that the CDE’s increase electoral awareness. Indeed, electoral information is at the tap of our fingers, yet this does not necessarily translate into ‘trust’ and voter participation. Voter apathy is driven by distrust rather than ignorance. Additionally, the persistent unemployment rates contributing to socioeconomic precarity, the weak link between voting and tangible service delivery outcomes, corruption, and unresponsive governments, amongst others, contribute to the failure of these CDE programmes[2]. The other pertinent issue is that CDE programmes are often institution-led by IECs and CSOs; however, they sometimes lack credible, youth-centred political party agendas. In as much as political parties may get involved in the CDE programmes most times for some parties, youth voices are tokenised rather than spoken to or listened to. Communication, therefore, appears to be one-sided, with youth being educated on democracy but excluded from the real decision-making. In as much as the youth may voice out their struggles, the dialogue sessions end up being tokenistic without any real change being actioned. This leads to a lack of motivation in practicing democratic rights.

Research carried out just before the 2019 national and provincial elections revealed that political participation amongst young urban and rural voters was constrained by lack of motivation to engage in formal political channels. Despite engaging in politics through, for example, protesting, joining civic groups, or simply staying informed, the youth still lacked the motivation to convert these political interests into formal political engagement (Berinsky et al., 2016), such as voting. This, as they term it, is a matter of being ‘disengaged by choice’ (Berinsky et al., 2016). Although a decade has passed, similar arguments have persisted. Where youth agency struggles are excluded, actionable change is rendered void.

Youth Participation in the Digital Age

Technological advancement has led to digital democracy, with both political entities and citizens engaging in the digital space. As alluded to earlier, the youth are seen engaging with or staying informed about political issues, yet they remain disengaged from voting. They remain highly active on social media platforms such as WhatsApp, X, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Instagram, exercising their digital activism through commentary, music, parodies or skits, memes, podcasts, reposts, and hashtags. Social media platforms have provided the youth with a political arena with which they can voice their concerns. Additionally, these platforms have enabled the youth to hold political institutions and leaders publicly accountable, facilitating the critique of government performance and mobilisation around social injustices. The use of ‘viral politics’ through hashtags, memes, and parodies has helped shape political narratives and influence public opinion. By bypassing traditional gatekeepers such as mainstream media or political parties, the youth have reclaimed agency and autonomy in their political participation. 

Furthermore, the pushing of issue-based movements has allowed youth political expression while contributing to mobilization tactics. The historic #FeesMustFall protests, for example, provided important lessons about collective power and the potential of digitally organised movements to influence national-level policy and political decisions. Digital trends have the potential to organise, mobilize and voice youth demands thereby drawing the attention of government officials. Similarly, youth-led political content creation has contributed to electoral politics, with creators such as Itumeleng Mpofu in the Break It Down[3] and Amahle-Imvelo Jaxa in the Jaxx of All Trades[4] podcasts, offering accessible political content that piques youth interest.

Additionally, we see institutional efforts to adapt to youth digital behaviour, such as creating digital campaigns and youth-targeted engagements, such as online polls, to help spread electoral awareness and visibility amongst the youth. This, in turn, has helped curb some of the digital challenges, such as misinformation, deep fakes and echo chambers, which are likely to arise. Nonetheless, these efforts cannot erase the issues around equitable access due to the persistent digital divide.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Digital democracy is a two-way dialogue. Although the youth have found their footing in the digital arena, online dialogue and digital activism still need to be translated into actionable change. It is with this in mind that CDE programmes need to devise programmes that not only educate but also empower and amplify youth voices. This is where the gap lies. The programmes should move into interactive digital forums that actively involve the youth, thereby bringing them into democratic dialogue. Additionally, they should use platforms and partner with content creators that the youth already trust. Most of the South African youth tend to search for sociopolitical updates on X or TikTok platforms which organise relative content using the trending hashtags. Partnering with credible youth content creators to create short, impactful, and interactive content has greater potential to connect with youth demographics. Lastly, to close the gap between digital democracy and actionable change, CDEs should not only teach civic knowledge but also train youth in digital activism and ethical online engagement. This would create safe and responsible political expression that is neither disruptive nor incremental to social change.

Thelma Nyarhi is a Researcher at the Democracy Development Programme and writes in her own capacity.

References

Bastien, F., Koop, R., Small, T.A., Giasson, T. and Jansen, H., 2020. The role of online technologies and digital skills in the political participation of citizens with disabilities. Journal of Information technology & politics, 17(3), pp.218-231.

Berinsky, A.J., de Kadt, D., Orkin, K. and Posner, D.N., 2016. Disengaged by choice? A research agenda for understanding low urban youth turnout in South Africa.

Bernholz, L., Landemore, H. and Reich, R. eds., 2021. Digital technology and democratic theory. University of Chicago Press.

Blühdorn, I. and Butzlaff, F., 2020. Democratization beyond the post-democratic turn: towards a research agenda on new conceptions of citizen participation. Democratization, 27(3), pp.369-388.

Fischli, R. and Muldoon, J., 2024. Empowering digital democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 22(3), pp.819-835.

Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V. and Mulgan, G., 2017. Digital democracy: The tools transforming political engagement.

[1] Sourced from: enhancing_youth_participation_2025.pdf

[2] Failure measured by the increasing voter apathy

[3] Sourced from: (44) Break It Down podcast - YouTube

[4] Sourced from: (44) Amahle-Imvelo Jaxa - YouTube