IEC rules out electronic voting for 2026 local government elections
The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) is unsure whether the e-voting system will be effective in the local government elections or not.
Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has indicated that electronic voting (e-voting) is improbable for the 2026 local government elections.
This follows the recent IEC-hosted e-voting conference, which explored the potential transition from the current paper-based voting system to an electronic model.
IEC's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Sy Mamabolo, said that while the conference was positive, it was still too early to overhaul the country's electoral system.
'It is important to note the commission has not yet made a decision on the use of e-voting, and certainly this is not contemplated for use in next year's municipal elections,' he said.
However, he said the commission launched a discussion document to start a country discussion on the use of technology in elections.
According to Mamabolo, the policy discussion document assessed, among others; reasons for considering the introduction of e-voting in South Africa; the relevant constitutional principles, policy and legal framework that must precede the introduction of e-voting in the country and available e-voting options, their technologies, and cost implications.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Kursk Under Fire, Truth Under Siege
By Gillian Schutte On 5 June 2025, I attended the Russian-hosted international online press symposium titled 'Liberation of Kursk Region', a teleconference convened to present first-hand accounts, evidence, and legal testimony on the attacks carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and foreign mercenaries during incursions into the Kursk Region. It was a sobering exercise in counter-memory — one that exposed the ideological filters through which Western media interprets war, and how it strategically erases certain kinds of suffering. The event brought together a panel of experts, eyewitnesses, and officials to report on the nature of these violations. Each presentation revealed both the physical damage inflicted on the Russian civilian population, as well as the deeper injury of denial — a refusal by the Western bloc to recognise the legitimacy of Russian civilian grief. The eyewitness accounts shared by three Kurskites were harrowing. One described watching elderly neighbours die when their home was shelled. Another spoke of civilians being shot at close range. A third, fighting tears, recounted the rape of women during the brief occupation of their village. These testimonies were the lived memories of war and trauma, delivered with quiet devastation. Rodion Miroshnik, Ambassador-at-Large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, provided a comprehensive briefing on what Russia identifies as crimes committed by the Kiev regime. He detailed the shelling of border villages, destruction of non-military infrastructure, use of foreign mercenaries, and the discovery of banned Western-supplied munitions, including cluster bombs and white phosphorus, in civilian zones. Miroshnik cited ongoing investigations by the Russian Investigative Committee into violations of international humanitarian law — all allegedly ignored by the institutions tasked with upholding these laws. According to Miroshnik, several communities in the Kursk Region suffered not only bombardment but were also subject to brief occupations by AFU-aligned forces. During these episodes, civilians were reportedly displaced, forcibly taken into Ukrainian territory, and subjected to psychological trauma. Families returning to liberated areas faced destroyed homes, contaminated land, and unexploded ordnance, with little to no humanitarian intervention from the international community. Igor Kashin, Head of the Special Projects Department in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, presented a legal analysis of these findings. His tone was forensic. He itemised the breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other international protocols, explaining how evidence had been submitted to various global institutions — including the UN and the ICC — yet no meaningful action had followed. Olga Kiriy, a Russian filmmaker and documentarian, delivered a visual account of the devastation. Her footage showed razed schools, burning residential blocks, and civilians returning to ghost towns, still wearing the shock of war on their faces. In one of her documentaries she shows a Ukranian soldier admitting to the rape of women by himself and his unit. Her presentation conveyed what words could not: the raw aftermath of military violence on people who remain unseen and unspoken in the official Western narrative of the conflict. Ivan Konovalov, military analyst and historian, contextualised the attacks on Kursk within a broader framework. He explained that the AFU operations were tactical provocations — designed to destabilise border regions and provoke retaliation, which could then be framed by NATO-aligned media as further proof of Russian aggression. He pointed out that these attacks coincided with deliveries of new Western weaponry to Ukraine, raising serious questions about the complicity of foreign governments and arms manufacturers. The testimonies shared during the teleconference dismantled the binary framework imposed by Western media, where Ukraine is valorised as a struggling democracy and Russia is reduced to a caricature. The reality conveyed by the speakers was more complex and far more disturbing. Russia, too, has civilians. Its towns and villages are not abstract zones on a geopolitical map but home to people who have suffered death, displacement, and the terror of war. Yet these accounts are absent from global headlines. They are not debated in parliaments, nor dissected on primetime panels. Instead, they are swiftly relegated to the realm of 'disinformation' — a catch-all term used by liberal institutions to shut down inconvenient truths. This is the machinery of narrative warfare — where facts are not weighed for their truth, but for their utility to power. The West's information order sustains itself through omission, selective moral outrage, and the assumption that some lives matter more than others. As a South African journalist who has long documented structural injustice, I recognise this silencing. It follows a pattern familiar to the Global South — where international law is invoked as a weapon rather than a principle; where invasions by Western powers are called interventions, but defensive operations by others are framed as crimes; and where victims must pass ideological litmus tests before they are deemed worthy of empathy. The suffering in the Kursk Region demands recognition. The use of banned munitions against civilians, the forced displacement of families, and the destruction of non-military infrastructure all constitute grave breaches of international law. That these acts are committed using Western weapons, under the cover of Western media silence, reveals a moral crisis at the heart of the liberal order. The conference was more than a forum for Russian voices. It was a reminder that truth is not owned by the powerful. It must be spoken even when it is buried. The people of Kursk have lived through war. They have returned to broken homes and haunted fields. Their testimonies exist. Their pain is real. And their silence is manufactured by design. If the term 'liberation' is to have meaning, it must include liberation from the monopolies that determine whose pain is legitimate. It must disrupt the asymmetry of grief that defines the West's geopolitical posture. We owe that to the people of Kursk. We owe it to all communities whose trauma is edited out of history to suit imperial narratives. And we owe it to ourselves, if we are to resist becoming complicit in the global machinery of selective justice. *Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker, and critical-race scholar known for her radical critiques of neoliberalism, whiteness, and donor-driven media. Her work centres African liberation, social justice, and revolutionary thought. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Eyewitness News
5 days ago
- Eyewitness News
Iranians' World Cup dream crushed by US travel ban
TEHRAN - A year out from kick-off, Iranian football fans are watching their World Cup dream slip away after a US travel ban barred them from entering the land of "Great Satan" to cheer on their team. The 2026 tournament will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, but most matches, including the final, are scheduled to be played on American soil. Many in Iran had clung to hopes of cheering from the stands until Wednesday when US President Donald Trump rolled out a new travel ban on 12 countries including Iran, which will take effect from Monday. "My friends and I have been waiting for years to watch Team Melli (a nickname for the national team) play in a World Cup on US soil, and when they qualified, it felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Sohrab Naderi, a real estate agent in Tehran, told AFP. "Now with the new travel ban, that dream is shattered because of politics that we don't care about and have no control over," said the 46-year-old who attended the 2022 World Cup in Qatar which saw the US side defeat Iran 1-0 in the group stage. The prospect of Iran competing in a US-hosted tournament comes against the backdrop of a decades-long enmity, with diplomatic ties broken since the 1979 Islamic revolution. The two sides are currently engaged in high-stakes talks over Iran's nuclear programme, with the United States threatening military action if no deal can be reached. 'DEGRADING TO ALL IRANIANS' Trump said the new travel ban was prompted by a makeshift flamethrower attack on a Jewish protest in Colorado that US authorities blamed on a man they said was in the country illegally. The ban will not apply to athletes competing in either the 2026 World Cup or the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, the order said. Nonetheless, supporters who had dreamed of crossing the Atlantic to cheer on their team will no longer be able to make the trip. "Every Iranian has the right to support their team, just as much as any other country, whether the game is in America or in any other country," said Hasti Teymourpour, a 16-year-old football fan. Since his return to office in January, Trump has reinstated his "maximum pressure" policy of sanctions against Iran and vowed that "something bad" would happen unless the Iranians "move quickly" towards a nuclear deal. Naderi, who called the ban "inhumane" and "degrading to all Iranians", still hopes the Iran-US nuclear talks will yield a deal that might persuade Trump to reconsider. The outcome of the US-Iran talks that began in April remains unclear, and many fans worry that even if they result in a deal, it may be too late for them. Some Iranians have refused to give up hope, however, seeing in the World Cup an opportunity to thaw relations. "Sports diplomacy can act as a strong catalyst and bring the efforts of political diplomats to fruition sooner," said political commentator Mohammad Reza Manafi. It could be "a great opportunity to help advance diplomacy between the two countries". FRIENDLY? In a memorable 1998 World Cup clash, Iranian players handed flowers to their American adversaries and posed together for photos -- a rare public gesture of goodwill between the nations. Iran won 2–1, a victory celebrated in Tehran as a source of both sporting and political pride. With the 2026 draw expected in December, it remains unclear whether Iran and the United States will face off again, but anticipation is building. "The two countries are not hostile to each other, this political discussion is for the governments," said 44-year-old day labourer Siamak Kalantari. Another fan, Mahdieh Olfati, said: "If we face the US again, we'll definitely win." "Ours are real players," the 18-year-old added. Manafi, the commentator, said a friendly before the tournament, possibly hosted by a third country, could help ease tensions. Such a game, he said, could help "achieve what politicians from both sides have not managed to do for years".
IOL News
7 days ago
- IOL News
Should banks host the ballot? The democratic dilemma of ATM and app-based e-voting
ATMs and apps, unlike supervised polling booths, are uncontrolled environments. A voter could be coerced, or even incentivized to cast their ballot a certain way. Image: Supplied Prof Colin Thakur On 22 May 2024, at a joint IEC-UNISA engagement hosted at the UNISA Durban campus, I had the privilege of presenting my research on electronic voting (e-voting) in South Africa. The audience - comprising about 200 participants from academia, civil society, and industry - grappled with the future of elections in a digital democracy. Core concerns included the digital divide, inadequate voter education, and the technical infrastructure required to support secure and inclusive e-voting. Amid this robust debate, one audience member posed an intriguing question: Why not piggyback on banking apps or ATMs to collect votes securely? The suggestion - lateral and bold - demands thoughtful consideration, as it taps into the increasing appetite for leveraging familiar, trusted technologies to solve public challenges. We must have clear credible reasons for any decision choice. Interestingly, this ATM idea is not new. I explored similar terrain in my 2010 research report commissioned by the IEC, titled The X-National Experience. At the time, the national ATM footprint stood at 19,996, growing steadily to peak at 33 025 in 2019, before declining to around 28 467 today. This figure compares favourably to the 23 293 voting stations currently deployed during national elections. Yet this superficial alignment masks deeper issues. ATMs are not evenly distributed across human settlements. They are purposefully deployed in areas of high financial activity, often excluding rural and underserved communities. Unlike voting stations, they were never intended to ensure geographic electoral accessibility. This misalignment raises a critical democratic concern: how would such a model serve the unbanked, the rural, the digitally excluded? Moreover, the proposition of using banking apps or ATMs for voting introduces complex risks of outsourcing democracy to private institutions. While banks are generally trusted to secure financial transactions, elections are not just about data integrity - they're about public trust, transparency, and universal enfranchisement. Delegating the core mechanics of voting to corporations - however competent - alters the fundamental relationship between the state and its citizens. There are technical and ethical complications as well. ATMs and apps, unlike supervised polling booths, are uncontrolled environments. A voter could be coerced, or even incentivized to cast their ballot a certain way. The latter is called vote selling. This violates the secrecy of the vote, a cornerstone of legitimate democratic elections. Let us also not forget that while banks can afford a statistical margin of error in the form of a few lost rands across millions of transactions. This, while unpleasant is acceptable as a business risk. This is not the case in an elections. A single compromised ballot is a red flag for legitimacy and can, in some cases, could invalidate entire portions of an elections. Do also note the shrinking ATM footprint in South Africa. Banks are now closing ATMs due to three reasons: The first is Digital migration where more customers use online/mobile platforms. The second is operational costs and security risks with ATMs prone to vandalism, fraud, and cash transit costs particularly in remote areas. Finally new digital-first banks like TymeBank now use retail partnerships to offer cash access without traditional ATM infrastructure. This erosion of physical banking infrastructure further undermines the feasibility of ATM-based voting. Finally ATM or app voting is a form of remote voting also called Internet Voting is arguably the most contentious form of ballot capture. David Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University, argues that internet voting poses significant risks to election integrity, stating that "from the perspective of election trustworthiness, Internet voting is a complete disaster." This sentiment reflects broader concerns that the complexities and vulnerabilities inherent in digital platforms may not be adequately addressed when repurposing systems designed for banking to handle electoral functions.
