South Africa’s local government elections will take place on 4 November 2026 against a troubling democratic backdrop. Turnout in the 2021 municipal elections fell to roughly 46%, the lowest in the democratic era, while only 49% of South Africans now say democracy is preferable to all other forms of government. Yet, 61% still believe elections remain the best way to choose leaders. That contradiction matters. It means democratic faith has weakened, but it has not disappeared. The real question for 2026 is therefore not whether technology can magically save democracy. Rather, it is whether technology can help rebuild trust, participation and institutional resilience before distrust hardens into disengagement.

That distinction is important because democracies are not rescued by machines. They are strengthened by active citizens who still believe participation matters. Technology is only useful insofar as it lowers the barriers between citizens and democratic life. Used recklessly, artificial intelligence can deepen confusion, spread manipulation and corrode confidence in elections themselves. Used carefully, however, it can strengthen access to information, improve civic education and help electoral institutions function more effectively in an increasingly digital political environment. Thus, the real debate is not technology versus democracy, but whether technology can be disciplined in service of democracy itself.

The greatest immediate threat posed by AI to the 2026 local elections is not electronic vote-rigging. South Africa is not introducing online voting and the Electoral Commission itself has repeatedly cautioned that e-voting would not automatically increase turnout. The real danger lies elsewhere: misinformation, synthetic media and the erosion of trust in the referee itself. During the 2024 national and provincial elections, the IEC faced misinformation campaigns, cyberattacks and coordinated online harassment. Media Monitoring Africa’s Real411 platform recorded hundreds of complaints relating to disinformation, hate speech and incitement, much of it aimed directly at undermining confidence in the IEC.

That matters because democracy depends not only on whether elections are free and fair, but on whether citizens believe them to be free and fair. In the age of artificial intelligence, a single manipulated video, fake results graphic or fabricated statement can spread faster than official corrections. So we see that the challenge for South Africa is therefore not to suppress technology, but to build democratic resilience around it.

Fortunately, the foundations for that response already exist. The IEC has partnered with organisations such as Media Monitoring Africa, Google, Meta and TikTok to combat election disinformation and improve transparency around political advertising. The next step should be practical rather than theatrical. South Africa should develop multilingual AI civic-information systems anchored only in verified IEC information. Citizens should be able to use WhatsApp or official IEC platforms to confirm voting stations, ward boundaries, registration details, special voting procedures and municipal responsibilities in plain language and in all official languages. In a country where civic confusion often becomes political disengagement, clarity itself becomes democratic infrastructure.

This matters especially for young people, because, South Africa is one of the youngest countries in the world, with more than 21 million people between the ages of 15 and 34. Yet young citizens remain underrepresented on the voters’ roll and consistently vote at lower rates than older South Africans. In the 2021 local elections, turnout among voters aged 20 to 29 was only about 35%, far below older age groups. This is not simply apathy. It is also alienation. Many young people experience politics primarily through corruption scandals, unemployment statistics and collapsing local services. Indeed, democracy can quickly begin to feel abstract when the lived experience of governance feels broken.

Now, technology alone cannot solve those failures. But it can help reconnect citizens to the practical meaning of local democracy. AI-driven civic education tools, short-form multilingual explainers and ward-specific digital engagement could help younger voters understand how municipalities affect electricity, roads, refuse removal, water and accountability in everyday life. Democracy becomes more tangible when governance becomes legible. And, in many respects, that may be one of the most important democratic tasks facing South Africa today.

The infrastructure dimension also deserves sobriety rather than fantasy. South Africa is already highly connected through mobile networks, but connectivity remains uneven, especially in rural and underserved areas. This is where satellite technologies such as Starlink and other low-earth-orbit services become relevant. Not as ideological symbols or miracle cures, but as resilience infrastructure. Strategic satellite backup for remote voting stations, election offices and results centres could strengthen continuity during outages, disruptions or infrastructure failures. The smarter democratic goal is therefore not technological spectacle, but redundancy, reliability and lawful connectivity.

Technology will not save democracy from poor governance, corruption or political decay. No algorithm can substitute for ethical leadership or public trust. Yet technology can reduce the cost of truth, lower the friction of participation and strengthen the resilience of democratic institutions. In South Africa’s 2026 local government elections, that may prove to be the difference between a frustrated democracy that weakens further and a constitutional democracy that still retains the capacity to renew itself.

For more on this topic read: FW DE KLERK’S ADDRESS TO THE TWENTIETH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION AT POTCHEFSTROOM UNIVERSITY – https://fwdeklerk.org/download/fw-de-klerk-s-address-to-the-twentieth-international-conference-on-technology-and-education-at-potchefstroom-university/