(John McCann/M&G)
South Africa’s political leaders are taking to social media like never before. From X to Facebook, ministers are building visible personal brands, tweeting opinions, replying to constituents, and even issuing policy clarifications, through livestream. Nearly all the cabinet members are active, with President Cyril Ramaphosa leading with about 2.95 million followers.
But behind the ministers’ bold digital voices lie mostly silent ministries. Government departments, although present online, continue to use platforms as old-fashioned noticeboards — spaces to post announcements, photo ops and press releases, with little to no engagement with the public.
This digital dissonance is more than aesthetic. It represents a profound breakdown in how the South African government as a whole engages its citizens online. When communication is fragmented between visible political principals and opaque bureaucratic institutions, the state becomes inconsistent, reactive and inaccessible in the very spaces where modern governance should thrive.
I conducted a qualitative study of social media use by nine national government ministers and their corresponding departments from January to March this year. The research involved analysing more than 300 posts and threads across Facebook and X. It focused on the frequency of updates, the tone of posts and — most importantly — the level of citizen engagement. Specifically, we assessed whether public comments received replies, whether criticism or queries were acknowledged, and whether there was any attempt at two-way communication or follow-up.
For example, the ministry of home affairs’ official account posted more than 50 announcements in the period under review, including passport collection notices, office closures and staff appointments. Not a single one of those posts received a public reply. In the same period, the minister’s personal account engaged with at least 15 queries, ranging from asylum documentation delays to border control issues.
This mismatch was echoed in other departments such as health, basic education and transport. The trend was consistent: institutional silence, individual response.
This finding echoes research by Fashoro and Barnard (2021); Mawela 2016 and Matsilela 2023, who assessed South Africa’s governmental use of social media for citizen participation. Their study found that public departments overwhelmingly used Facebook and X (then Twitter) for one-way communication, rarely responding to public queries or criticism.
Instead of using platforms to create meaningful dialogue, many departments resorted to a broadcasting style reminiscent of traditional media. Similarly, a global comparative study by Criado et al (2016) found that governments often default to passive information dissemination, even though social media offers powerful opportunities for real-time accountability.
In South Africa’s case, this means the average citizen has more chances of getting a reply from a politician’s personal Twitter account than from a ministry’s official page. That’s not how a digital democracy is supposed to work.
We’ve seen the consequences of this silence during moments of national pain. In early 2025, the #JusticeForCwecwe campaign erupted after the alleged rape of a young girl in the Eastern Cape — a tragedy reportedly compounded by failures in the child protection system. While the Minister of Social Development posted a statement and responded to online calls for justice, the department’s official social media pages offered no direct response, no Q&A, no public engagement. When people demanded answers, they found none.
A similar silence surrounded the Tembisa Hospital procurement scandal. The assassination of whistleblower Babita Deokaran, and the exposure of R850 million in irregular contracts, sparked national outrage. Hashtags like #JusticeForBabita trended for weeks. While some political figures weighed in, the official channels of the Gauteng Department of Health remained passive. In an era when the public expects institutions to be transparent and responsive, this silence became complicity.
But social media is not only a place of protest. It can also be a site of constructive engagement. Take the 2023 Alex Mall sewage crisis, where residents of Alexandra in Johannesburg livestreamed sewage flooding a local shopping centre. The videos went viral, and after days of silence from the Johannesburg municipality, city officials were forced to respond publicly and launch an investigation. Without social media, the incident might have gone unacknowledged — just another quiet failure of basic services.
These are not just communication failures; they are governance failures. When citizens are unable to reach institutions in a crisis, when they are met with silence instead of service, trust in government collapses. Worse, it fosters a belief that institutions are not only unaccountable but uninterested.
It’s not as if the government lacks the tools to do better. As early as 2011, the department of public service and administration released a Social Media Guide for Government that encourages two-way digital interaction. The guide calls for departments to treat platforms as spaces for “conversational engagement” rather than just bulletin boards. Yet these principles remain aspirational rather than operational.
Meanwhile, ministers are being trained to sharpen their personal engagement. In August 2024, the presidency announced that ministers and deputy ministers would be instructed on social media best practices. The goal was to professionalise their digital presence and encourage responsible engagement. But once again, it’s the individuals being capacitated — not the institutions they lead.
And this is where the real danger lies. South Africa’s digital public sphere is being shaped by personalities rather than policies. Leaders such as Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi and Gayton McKenzie, the minister of sports, arts and culture, are digitally dynamic, responding to queries, debunking rumours and even crowdsourcing ideas. But what happens when a minister is reshuffled or less engaged? Citizens don’t stop having questions. They just stop getting answers.
This personalisation of communication creates a fragile system. A digitally literate citizenry — over 26 million strong — is left dependent on the social media temperament of individual ministers. Civic organisations like #NotInMyName, #UniteBehind and #ScopaWatch have stepped into the void, using hashtags, petitions and livestreams to fill the gap. But their reach is not universal, and they cannot replace the government’s institutional responsibility to listen, engage, and act.
So what’s the solution?
First, ministries must stop treating social media as a public relations tool and start using it as a governance tool. This means setting up teams to monitor platforms in real time, respond to queries and engage constructively. It also means training staff — not just ministers — on tone, timing and transparency.
Second, the government must establish engagement metrics. How long does it take a department to reply to a tweet? How often are citizen complaints acknowledged or addressed online? These should be public benchmarks, part of every department’s performance evaluation.
Third, and most importantly, digital responsiveness must be institutionalised. It should not matter whether a minister is popular on TikTok or silent on Facebook. What should matter is whether the department they lead is digitally present, responsive and trustworthy.
In the digital era, silence is not neutral — it is a statement. When ministries remain passive online, they signal disinterest, incompetence or evasion. They leave their ministers exposed and their citizens ignored. South Africa can no longer afford this disconnection. The tools for engagement exist. The platforms are active. The people are speaking. What remains is for the institutions to listen — and respond.
The time for digital governance is now. Not with more tweets, but with more trust.
Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala is a lecturer and researcher in public policy, monitoring and evaluation and digital governance based in Johannesburg.