Language use continues to divide South Africans

A number of years ago I worked for an organisation in which the inconsiderate use of Afrikaans in staff meetings was routine and made it hard for non-speakers of this language to comprehend and participate meaningfully in such meetings. People, especially black Africans, complained ad nauseam about this practice but no one ever took them seriously. In fact, those who dared raise their voices were systematically treated as spoilt brats with chips on their shoulders who thought that the new South Africa was about them alone. As a result, they were almost systematically marked for some kind of retribution later on when they least expected it, especially when salary adjustments and performance were discussed. But this retribution also came in many other forms. In order to keep their jobs and to stay out of trouble, many simply stopped raising their voices during the meetings but, nevertheless, continued to complain in private when they felt to be in safe, sympathetic, company. It was a very difficult organisation to work for because even the top management was never sympathetic to the cries of the black employees; all was simply dismissed and swept under the carpet. Upon the matter being raised during one executive management meeting, one senior director responded that “black employees need to understand that this is an Afrikaans organisation”. The organisation in question is a parastatal. The then CEO, also present, never bothered to correct that remark.

An incident that left a lasting mark on me was the day when members of the board and the executive management had sessions during which some mid-level scientists came to present projects that they were involved in. Coloured and white employees made their presentations in Afrikaans – a language that they grew up with and that they spoke at home and in their everyday lives with ease – while black employees made their presentations in English – a second language that they barely mastered, for most of them. Naturally, the Afrikaans language speakers were much more enthusiastic, flawless and engaging in their presentations because the audience was mostly Afrikaans speaking. While the content of the presentations by the black scientists was also interesting, the delivery was much less engaging; it was even full of flaws. It was clear that they needed to overcome the language barriers before they could even get their message across, something that was not the case with their coloured and white counterparts. It was also clear that they knew their work and would have been much more engaging and interesting to listen to had they been presenting it in the languages that they were most comfortable with, the languages that they grew up with and spoke at home. Because most of the audience was Afrikaans speaking, they were thus able to ask questions and entertain long and in-depth discussions in Afrikaans with the young scientists who spoke this language; not so with the black scientists. In fact, very few questions were asked after the presentations by the black scientists and very little discussion engaged in. On the whole, they were merely politely acknowledged. The language barrier was so heavy that one could almost touch it. I deeply felt their struggle.

I was reminded of this sad part of my career a number of months ago when I attended a post-local government election swearing-in of councilors at a council meeting in a town not too far from Cape Town. All the DA councilors present, white and coloured, spoke in Afrikaans and all the ANC councilors present, mostly black African, spoke in English. The former spoke in a language that they grew up with and that came naturally to them; the latter spoke in English, a language – it became clear – that did not come naturally to them. It was immediately obvious that most of them struggled expressing themselves eloquently in the Queen (of England)’s language; even when they attempted to ask what seemed to be the most basic of questions and to make the most basic of remarks, their speech was full of flaws, almost hesitant and childlike. The search for words and the right expression to say what they could say eloquently in, say, Xhosa, stood between them and their audience. They seemed to be strangers in a strange land, aliens as it were. It was even harder for them to successfully make jokes and obtain the intended response from the audience of councilors and members of the public present when some of them attempted to do so. This was not the case with the Afrikaans speaking councilors because not only were they self-assured in their speeches, they managed to connect with the many members of the public present, who even laughed at their jokes. There was a palpable strict linguistic divide; councilors who occupied ANC benches spoke approximate English and councilors occupying DA benches spoke what seemed to me like flawless Afrikaans.

Things worsened after the new DA office bearers were elected in a secret ballot. The proceedings, which had been conducted in English from the start, were taken over by the new authorities and conducted in Afrikaans to the exclusion of anyone in the gallery who did not understand the language. It was almost like newly acquired power was being wielded. In the council room full to capacity – with many people standing on the isles, along the walls, just inside and outside the doors – only those seated on the benches could access the interpretation system.  Yesteryear memories came flooding back and I found myself saddened again for our country.

Upon asking a black African member of the public sitting next to me why the African language speaking councilors did not exercise their right to speak in a language that they were most comfortable with, he gave me the most unexpected response: “the ANC is a multi-cultural organisation, they have to speak English in order to accommodate everyone”. Noble answer, I thought, but also wondered, at the expense of appearing to be like children learning to speak again in such an important forum when they should be presenting adult arguments to represent their constituencies?

Now, much has been said about the importance of considering the introduction of mother-tongue education for children in South Africa. This debate has been correctly focused at children, leaders of tomorrow, but there is, clearly, a need to also look at the struggle by many black African adults – often otherwise brilliant in their subjects – to perform optimally in their careers simply because they often lack the (English or Afrikaans) language skills required in the labour market in order for them to show their luster.

It doesn’t seem right that thirty-six years after 1976, black Africans can still be alienated by language in professional situations. Now that the law allows it, I fail to understand why black Africans in situations described above cannot simply use their constitutionally protected right – like their Afrikaans speaking counterparts correctly do – to make their speeches in African languages and be the adults that they are when they speak with self-assured authority in their own languages.

Having witnessed the above described scenarios, I now firmly believe that the debate about the place of the ‘home language’ (which is not necessarily ‘mother-tongue’) in early education, and in the South African labour market in general, is still at its infancy.

I also still haven’t figured out whether speakers of Afrikaans simply do not care about the feelings of others or whether they simply, innocently, assume that everyone (must) understand(s) their language.

The challenge of managing Nation Brands

Do Nation Brands need to be managed?

Why speak of Nation Brands?
Like in any competitive environment, the global economic arena requires that those brands that want to stand-out and be recognised as leaders behave in a particular way, consistent with their Brand Identity, i.e. consistent with the image that they want to project of themselves to their “target markets and audiences”. While this is a bit easier for organisational, product and service brands, it is less simple for national brands. The reason is rather simple. National brands are often managed by governments or government appointed entities driven largely by political considerations. Since the behavior of all governments is almost always driven by narrow state interests, the conduct of governments is often opportunistic, therefore unpredictable. Good, successful brands are those that offer predictable levels and quality of service delivery. They are successful because their consumers or patrons are able to go back to them over and over again because they know what they will get for their patronage or hard earned cash. In the same way, countries that achieve higher levels of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from multiple sources are those that boast independent democratic institutions that offer a level of predictability to investors, tourists and others.

Erratic Nation Brand Behaviour
Examples of these are many. Countries, mostly – but not exclusively – in Africa, that lack independent institutions of democracy make it hard for foreign tourists, investors and state institutions to develop faith in them. It is hard, for instance, for potential tourists to choose a vacation destination if the political, health, transport infrastructure, banking, etc. regimes in countries under consideration are known to be unreliable and prone to change negatively at the drop of a hat. Countries that are also seen to entertain relations with suspect international organisations and rogue states also end up with tarnished brands, lumped together with those of the institutions and rogue states that they are perceived to be closed to. Negative national brand perceptions can therefore rub-off on friend nations; ending-up in massive quantities of resources being required in order to differentiate them from their “friends”.

Brand South Africa in all this
South Africa’s perceived sympathy with the Zimbabwean, Sudanese and Libyan dictators has not made it easy for Brand South Africa to sell itself effectively in global markets. Some former friends have also ceased to take it as seriously as they did when former President Nelson Mandela was still in power. The country’s attempt to have former Ivorian President, Laurent Gbagbo, retained in power even after years of avoiding democratic elections and, after they were held, refusing to leave office when he lost the elections, confused many friends of South Africa, even on the African continent, e.g. Nigeria, the West African power house. The recent refusal by South Africa to grant access to the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, apparently at the behest of Communist China, has done much to further damage the reputation of Brand South Africa as one that was meant to stand firm in the fight for the human rights of the downtrodden from all over the world. South Africans, the supposed brand ambassadors of Brand South Africa, were also left confused, angered and less proud to associate with their own elected government. The ruling party in South African has become a master in national brand self flagellation.

Nation Brands must be carefully managed
Increasingly, countries have to deliberately put measures in place to manage their reputation. Leaving negative perceptions to correct themselves by some stroke of luck is no longer the way to go. Hopes were raised the world over when US President Barack Obama was first elected. He extended what seemed to be a hand of friendship to nations of the world and, in a large way, positively changed the way in which George W. Bush managed Brand America and in how the latter was perceived, especially in the Arab world. Since then, Obama’s perceived inability to fend off the unending/ returning economic recession, on the one hand, internally damaged all hope that had come with his ascension to power and, on the other hand, the dictates of political survival and real politik – every American President’s desperate need to be elected for a second-term – erased much of the hope that he brought with him. America’s predictable and, seemingly, blind, support of the State of Israel against the opinion of much of the world, has returned perceptions about Brand America almost back to where they were during the Bush presidency.

To conclude, all national brands have to be managed with their “brand aspirations / brand vision” in mind. The democratic institutions that get put in place and respected according to the rule of law – with no one seen to be above the law – and the general manner in which states carry themselves, including their voting patterns within the United Nations (UN) and its many structures, will determine the image and brand positioning over time. Respect for freedoms aimed at encouraging free speech, association, choice of faith, etc. also contribute to national brand positioning and, by extension, perception.

Back to branding basics?

Click here to view the article as printed in the October 2011 issue of Branding South Africa Feature – Strategic Marketing Magazine. (Please note: The file is 1.1mb and may take a while to open. Thank you.)

Celebrating bridge-builders

I have followed with much interest and, often, trepidation the reactions to Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu’s suggestion of a special tax to make white South Africans pay for having benefitted from apartheid. I do not agree with many reasons advanced for rejecting this proposal, especially coming from many of those who love the man when he castigates the ANC and National government, but who suddenly find the racist in him when he attempts to address matters that they would rather remain hidden under our dirty and smelling carpets of history. Read more >>

Mother tongue needed to level playing fields?

A number of years ago I worked for an organisation in which the inconsiderate use of Afrikaans in staff meetings was routine and made it hard for non-speakers of this language to comprehend and participate meaningfully in such meetings. People, especially black Africans, complained ad nauseam about this practice but no one ever took them seriously. In fact, those who dared raise their voices were systematically treated as spoilt brats with chips on their shoulders who thought that the new South Africa was about them alone. As a result, they were almost systematically marked for some kind of retribution later on when they least suspected it, especially when salary adjustments and performance were discussed. Read more >>

Managing Nuclear Brand Communications

Controversial Brand Communications
Nuclear Energy and its often negative brand associations

The March 2011 earthquake that occurred off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, Japan, resulted in a Tsunami of historic proportions that gave global anti-nuclear lobbies a fresh, post-Chernobyl, excuse to strengthen their anti-nuclear rhetoric. Prior to this earthquake, the nuclear accident that occurred in Chernobyl on 26 April 1986 had been the main weapon of choice against proponents of nuclear power. Read more >>

Has Zuma improved Brand South Africa?

There is no doubt that the arrival of US President Barack Obama at the White House was followed by much renewed goodwill and contributed positively to changing the image of America around the world. His message of hope resonated far beyond the borders of the USA, touching on Africa – where Kenyans and others claimed him as one of their own – Australasia, Europe, The Middle and Far-East, The Pacific and other parts of the world. Given the place occupied by the USA in the affairs of the world, this reach has not been a surprise. Read more >>

Branding in the Public Sector – Pitfalls et al

The dawn of South Africa’s young democracy has, since 1994, encouraged thousands of attempts to rebrand all types of things that reminded the majority of this country’s population of negative memories of the past. These attempts at rebranding, some with more success than others, have ranged from personal names – e.g. former anti-apartheid veterans, “Terror” Lekota changed (Africanised) his name to Mosioua Lekota, and Sam Shilowa changed his to Mbhazima Shilowa; Soapie and theatre actor Sam Ncube changed his name to Sam Maake ka Ncube, while Soapie (Muvhango) Executive Producer Duma Ndlovu Africanised his name to Duma ka Ndlovu – to geographic names (e.g. Johannesburg International Airport to O.R. Tambo International; Pietersburg is now called Polokwane; Greater Metropolitan Pretoria is now Tshwane, etc.). South Africa also boasts many post-apartheid Nelson Mandela Drives, a Bram Fischer Lecture Hall, a Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden, and many other new names. Apart from these famous examples, many other changes have been made throughout our short democratic history. Read more >>

What is in Political Brands?

South African media coverage has been dominated by intensive events in the political arena for at least the past two years now. In early 2008 all media cameras were focused on the changing leadership of the Democratic Alliance (DA), keenly interested to see who would take over from the unapologetically feisty Tony Leon to take the party to another level or stage of its growth in South African politics. The central question in debates related to this leadership change in the DA was focused on whether and how the new party leader would grow the DA Brand through better in-roads into Black (African) support; the extent to which the new leader would manage to “transform” the party, remove the stigma of it being perceived as one that only represents white minority interests, and have a more cordial relationship with the then President of the Republic of South Africa. Read more >>