Factors Influencing the Potential Adoption of Social Media for Citizen-Based Monitoring in South Africa

Lesedi Senamele Matlala

doi:10.59490/dgo.2025.1063

Authors

Lesedi Senamele Matlala School of Public Management Governance and Public Policy, University of Johannesburg, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6110-9902

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59490/dgo.2025.1063

Keywords:

social media, citizen-based monitoring, digital governance, public accountability

Abstract

Social media platforms have globally transformed governance, serving as vital tools for real-time communication, transparency, and public engagement. These platforms are widely used in South Africa for government-citizen communication and engagement. Still, their application in citizen-based monitoring (CBM)—a participatory governance mechanism that enables citizens to monitor public service delivery and hold governments accountable—remains unrealized. Despite South Africa’s relatively high internet penetration rate of 68% and widespread social media adoption, systemic, institutional, and socio-economic barriers hinder its use for CBM. This study explores the factors influencing the potential adoption of social media for CBM in South Africa, offering insights into the opportunities and constraints shaping this emerging governance tool. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research incorporates qualitative data from interviews with government officials, media representatives, and civic organizations alongside quantitative findings from a citizen survey. The study identifies critical barriers, including unequal access to digital infrastructure, limited digital literacy among citizens and government officials, the absence of policy frameworks for social media governance, and socio-economic disparities perpetuating a digital divide. Moreover, trust deficits between citizens
and government institutions present significant challenges to adopting social media for participatory monitoring. However, the research also highlights enabling factors, such as growing digital adoption, isolated cases of innovative practices, and an increasing recognition of social media’s potential to enhance governance accountability. This study contributes to the discourse on digital governance by examining the factors influencing social media adoption for CBM in South Africa. It provides actionable recommendations, including investing in digital literacy programs, strengthening infrastructure, and fostering trust through participatory policy frameworks. By contextualizing South Africa’s experience within the broader African governance landscape, the research lays a foundation for future strategies to harness social media’s potential in bridging the gap between citizens and governments through monitoring and accountability initiatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy. The Journal of E-Democracy, 7(4), 10-15.

OECD. (2021). Digital Government Review of Norway. OECD Publishing.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 365-374.

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2012). The implementation of social media for participation in the public sector. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on e-Government.

UNDP. (2021). Participatory Governance and Citizen Engagement: A Global Perspective. United Nations Development Programme.

Eom, T., Park, J., & Yoo, C. (2018). The use of social media for citizen participation in local government: The case of SeeClickFix. Public Administration Review, 78(5), 812-821.

Howard, A., & Parks, L. (2012). The Australian Government’s engagement with social media. Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 229-245.

ICASA. (2022). South Africa’s Internet Usage Statistics 2022. Independent Communications Authority of South Africa.

Statistics South Africa. (2022). The role of digital platforms in public service delivery in South Africa.

Afrobarometer. (2023). South Africa’s Digital Divide: Bridging the Gap. Afrobarometer Report No. 45.

Draai, S. (2010). Governance, transparency, and the challenges of implementing e-governance in South Africa.

Farelo, T., & Morris, M. (2006). E-Government Policy Framework in South Africa.

Matsilele, T. (2019). Public Perceptions on Digital Governance and Accountability in South Africa. South African Journal of Public Administration.

Peled, A., & Unkule, G. (2016). FixMyStreet: The use of social media in citizen-based monitoring. International Journal of Urban Governance, 8(2), 145-160.

Almalki, M., & Mohammed, M. (2018). Adaa: Enhancing citizen participation through social media in Saudi Arabia. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 581-594.

Okolloh, O. (2009). Ushahidi: Mapping post-election violence and the use of social media in disaster management. Journal of African Technology and Development, 6(3), 220-234.

Charowa, K., Gavaza, F., & Mavodza, M. (2020). GovChat: Leveraging social media for improving service delivery in South Africa. African Journal of Public Administration, 28(3), 320-332.

Chege, M., & Kiunguyu, A. (2019). Ushahidi and citizen engagement: Lessons from Kenya’s election monitoring. International Journal of Political Participation, 22(1), 67-81.

Doppelt, B. (2013). SeeClickFix: A platform for citizen engagement and accountability. Urban Affairs Review, 48(2), 239-256.

Matsilele, T. (2019). Public Perceptions on Digital Governance and Accountability in South Africa. South African Journal of Public Administration.

ICASA. (2022). South Africa’s Internet Usage Statistics 2022. Independent Communications Authority of South Africa.

Ogunlana, A., & Olalekan, O. (2018). EndSARS and social media’s role in mobilizing advocacy. Nigerian Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 59-72.

Mawela, S. (2017). Digital literacy and the implications for social media use in governance. South African Journal of Information Studies, 22(2), 45-53.