The price of going viral – when political activism becomes very expensive

Daily Maverick

2 hours ago

In an age where a single WhatsApp message can mobilise protesters and a Facebook post can shape public opinion about workplace disputes, the traditional boundaries between political activism and trade union representation are blurring in ways that would have been unimaginable a generation ago.
The recent labour court judgment in Boomerang Fruits (Pty) Ltd v Umkhonto weSizwe and Others offers a stark reminder that these boundaries exist for good reasons and that crossing them can have serious legal consequences – particularly when amplified through digital platforms that can transform minor workplace grievances into viral political campaigns.
From payroll error to digital political theatre
The case began with a seemingly mundane payroll error. Agricultural workers at a fruit farm in Elgin in the Western Cape were underpaid overtime wages ranging from R120 to R176 per person – hardly the stuff of revolutionary politics.
Yet within days, this minor administrative mistake had escalated into a full-blown industrial dispute involving police escorts, highway blockades, criminal charges and a sophisticated digital media campaign that branded the employer across multiple online platforms as racist and colonial.
The transformation was breathtakingly swift. What might once have taken weeks of careful union organisation now unfolded in real time across social media networks. The Umkhonto weSizwe party (MK) didn't simply insert itself into the dispute – it digitally amplified it, using Facebook posts, press releases and WhatsApp groups to craft a narrative that reached far beyond the farm gates of the Western Cape.
The digital disruption of industrial relations
The involvement of the MK party demonstrates how political parties have learned to exploit the digital revolution in ways that fundamentally challenge traditional industrial relations.
When employees contacted the party for assistance, the MK party didn't simply offer advice or direct workers to appropriate legal channels. Instead, it created a parallel digital infrastructure that bypassed established negotiation mechanisms entirely.
The party's WhatsApp communications coordinated meetings with management, its Facebook posts generated public sympathy for workers, and its press releases shaped media coverage – all while maintaining the pretence of merely providing 'advisory' support. This digital orchestration allowed the MK party to function as a shadow trade union while avoiding the legal responsibilities that formal representation would entail.
Judge Robert Lagrange's judgment methodically dissected this digital strategy, concluding that the MK party had 'consistently assumed the role of the representative of the strikers' while simultaneously 'launching a media attack on Boomerang, portraying it in villainous terms'.
The court recognised that in the digital age, representation isn't just about formal negotiations – it's about controlling the narrative that shapes public perception and influences the balance of power.
The legal principle at stake is both simple and profound, but its application has become infinitely more complex in the digital era. South Africa's industrial relations system was designed for an analogue world where disputes unfolded in board rooms and on factory floors, not on social media platforms where every statement can be screenshot, shared and weaponised.
The social media amplification effect
The court's analysis of the MK party's digital campaign reveals how social media has fundamentally altered the dynamics of labour disputes. Traditional negotiation assumes a degree of privacy that allows parties to make concessions without losing face publicly. Digital platforms destroy this privacy, creating performative pressures that make compromise virtually impossible.
The MK party's Facebook posts describing the company as a 'colonial nest' and 'active site of colonial exploitation' weren't just political rhetoric – they were strategic digital content designed to generate shares, comments and viral engagement. The party understood that in the attention economy, inflammatory language performs better than nuanced analysis. The result was a digital firestorm that bore little resemblance to the original overtime payment dispute.
WhatsApp democracy and workplace organising
Perhaps most significantly, the case highlights how WhatsApp has become a significant organising tool for both legitimate trade union activity and political interference. The MK party's use of WhatsApp groups to coordinate with workers, arrange meetings and distribute talking points created an informal, but highly effective communication network that traditional employers and unions struggle to understand or counter.
This 'WhatsApp democracy' operates outside formal industrial relations structures, creating new possibilities for worker organisation, but also new vulnerabilities to political manipulation. The platform's end-to-end encryption makes it nearly impossible for employers to understand how disputes are being coordinated, while its group messaging functionality allows political parties to influence large numbers of workers simultaneously.
The judgment also reveals how digital platforms have created expectations of real-time transparency that clash with the traditionally private nature of labour negotiations.
The MK party's social media strategy assumed that followers expected constant updates, behind-the-scenes content and immediate responses to developments. This digital transparency imperative makes the patient, confidential work of genuine dispute resolution nearly impossible.
When every negotiation session can be livestreamed, every concession can be immediately scrutinised by online audiences, and every statement can be taken out of context and shared widely, the incentives shift dramatically towards performative confrontation rather than problem-solving. Political parties, with their natural understanding of digital engagement, are far better positioned to exploit these dynamics than traditional trade unions or employers.
Digital accountability and legal consequences
Judge Lagrange's decision to confirm the interdict against the MK party represents one of the first serious judicial attempts to grapple with how digital platforms are reshaping labour relations. The court recognised that social media posts and WhatsApp messages aren't just commentary – they constitute active participation in labour disputes with real legal consequences.
The costs order against the MK party is particularly significant in the digital context. By requiring the party to pay the employer's legal costs, the court has established that viral social media campaigns carry financial risks. This digital accountability principle could fundamentally alter how political parties approach online labour activism.
The broader implications extend far beyond this single case. Digital platforms don't just amplify existing power dynamics – they create entirely new ones. Political parties that master social media engagement can mobilise workers more effectively than traditional trade unions, but they lack the institutional knowledge and legal obligations that make genuine representation possible.
The result is what might be called 'algorithm activism' – political engagement optimised for digital metrics rather than real-world outcomes. The MK party's campaign generated thousands of shares and comments, but it ultimately prolonged the dispute and harmed the workers it claimed to represent. The digital medium had become the message, drowning out the substance of legitimate workplace grievances.
Towards digital industrial relations
As South Africa grapples with persistent inequality and workplace exploitation, the intersection of digital technology and labour relations will only become more complex. The Boomerang Fruits case provides a crucial precedent for how courts might approach political parties that use social media to blur the lines between advocacy and representation.
The challenge ahead is developing industrial relations frameworks that can harness the democratising potential of digital platforms while preventing their exploitation by political opportunists. This will require new forms of digital literacy among trade unionists, employers and judges, as well as clearer legal guidelines about what constitutes impermissible political interference in the social media age.
The labour court's firm stance in this case demonstrates that legal principles can adapt to technological change, but only if we remain vigilant about protecting the institutional boundaries that make effective labour relations possible.