South Africa: brand or bind?

Right, so, I introduced this topic in last week’s post “African Denaissance”. A short piece, then, on the issue of “Brand South Africa”.

Please let me make clear that these are simply opinions, rather than attempts to undermine the integrity of our foetal democracy. That said, though, I think a reasoned debate on, well, everything is pivotal to the success of any truly free society.

So, “Brand South Africa”, then. To begin, let’s take a look at some other countries and their “brands”: the Germans are organized, the South Americans are (so very very) cool, the Japanese are ingenious, the Italians are sexy and the French are suave (I won’t mention what the world thinks of America: it’s the perfect example of a negative brand). Now, these are great, and are definitely wonderful selling points for cars, perfumes, technology and so forth. However, these identities arose to some extent as the perception of people outside these countries and were then seized on and used by the countries themselves. In addition, the societies and histories in play are very different from ours.

South Africa is still in turmoil. It may be more subtle, but that does not mean it’s any less there. In essence, we’re desperately insecure. Rather than simply being ourselves, in all the multitude of selves available to us as a very fractured society, we are desperately afraid this won’t be good enough and so we’re attempting to force an image of ourselves both internally and externally. This is where the discussion intersects with that of the African Renaissance. Once again, our identity is a function of who we are - the various individuals and groups that make up this country – and so is emergent rather than designed.

Another significant wrinkle with the South Africa brand, and one I alluded to earlier, is that of fracturing. While sounding lovely, the term “rainbow” we use to describe ourselves not only connotes variety but as part of that variety, connotes divisions. Fractures. Barriers. We are a country of 11 official languages and ongoing political and racial strife. So what “South Africa” means is very different for each group. Apartheid destroyed a common history for us, and there is a great deal of time still needed to form that shared history. Perhaps then we can look at ourselves and say what we think we want people to think of when they think of “South Africa”, but first we need shared understanding and a common vision amongst the people of this country.

We will also need to find our niche in the world, something we are still struggling to do. For sure, South Africa has imagery attached to it in the minds of people overseas, but the picture is far from complete, or internally consistent. We are home to Nelson Mandela and Dessie, have a very progressive constitution, managed the changeover to democracy without civil war (although the crime levels could be seen as an expression of the anger that still resides here), are the only country to ever have voluntarily given up the technology to make nukes, and have some very sophisticated infrastructure. On the other hand, we have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world (we’re more dangerous than some war zones, apparently), some unbelievably incompetent people in very powerful positions in government, and certain political policies which are disenfranchising an entire new generation of people.

Where’s the brand? Certainly nothing we can force, as brands reside in the minds of the people exposed to them, rather than being dictated by their originators. Perhaps, then, we need to stop fooling ourselves with optimistic propaganda and blinkers, and work towards a country that is capable of having a brand that people respond to and that we can be proud of.

Yours
aimee