Beyond viral outrage — the need for proactive governance in South Africa

In recent years, a familiar pattern has emerged in South Africa’s public life. A crime occurs in a public space, it is recorded on a cellphone, and the footage circulates widely on social media. Public outrage follows, and authorities respond with unusual speed. Arrests are made, statements are issued, and accountability appears to be delivered.

At first glance, this development seems encouraging. In a society grappling with high levels of violent crime and corruption, public exposure has become a powerful corrective. Social media has stripped even well-connected individuals of anonymity once wrongdoing enters the public domain. In this sense, crowdsourced accountability has succeeded where formal institutions have often struggled.

Yet this phenomenon also exposes a deeper governance dilemma. When enforcement action is triggered primarily by visibility and virality, the state risks becoming reactive rather than preventive. Social media can amplify crimes after they occur, but it cannot deter violence before it happens. A governance system that depends on public exposure responds to harm rather than preventing it.

Political science scholarship on state capacity emphasises the state’s ability to enforce laws consistently and proactively across its territory. This includes maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and providing public safety regardless of publicity. In South Africa, the growing reliance on citizen documentation suggests a partial outsourcing of these responsibilities to the public.

Crowdsourced accountability produces uneven outcomes. Crimes that occur off-camera, often in marginalised communities, informal settlements, rural areas, or private spaces, rarely generate the same urgency as crimes that are recorded and the images circulated. Victims without access to recording devices or digital platforms remain dependent on institutions that are frequently overstretched. Visibility becomes a condition for justice, introducing a quiet inequality into law enforcement.

Institutional weakness

This dynamic also risks normalising institutional weakness. Swift responses to viral incidents can create the appearance of effective governance without addressing structural deficiencies in policing capacity, investigative effectiveness, or deterrence. Over time, public outrage substitutes for institutional reform, and episodic enforcement replaces sustained prevention

Importantly, this is not an argument against the role of social media in accountability. Public exposure has played a vital role in confronting corruption, abuse of power and everyday criminality. Rather, the concern lies in mistaking exposure for governance. Accountability driven by virality is inherently selective and unpredictable, leaving large areas of social life beyond its reach.

As South Africa navigates persistent insecurity alongside democratic contestation, the reliance on crowdsourced law enforcement raises uncomfortable questions. Can a democratic state maintain legitimacy if citizens increasingly act as its eyes and triggers? What happens to crimes that never trend, never circulate, and never provoke outrage?

Ultimately, effective governance requires more than reactive responses to visible incidents. It requires institutions capable of anticipating harm, preventing violence and protecting citizens. Crowdsourced accountability may pressure the state to act, but it cannot replace the foundational work of rebuilding proactive state capacity. DM

Lungisani Mngadi is an independent policy researcher focusing on governance, state capacity and democratic accountability in Africa.