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.

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.

There are thousands of white South African who are quietly and privately going about the business of “giving back” in this country. We seldom, if ever, read about them in newspapers and their names never get taken forward for the plethora of community builder awards that have mushroomed all over the place. They adopt – often not formally but through their deeds and regular contributions – children in difficult conditions; pay for their school fees, introduce them to sports, the arts, travel, give them sponsored membership to local libraries, etc. without making a lot of noise about their acts of kindness. Should these also be made to pay? Who would be the judge of what would constitute sufficient reparation and what would not?

A few months ago I finally accepted a long standing invitation to join an old friend – who happens to be a white South African – and his fellow cyclists from the Hout Bay Cycle Club (soon to be known as Hout Bay Imizamo-Yethu Cycle Club) on a Saturday morning ride. Almost four months after I went on that first ride, my Saturday mornings have changed; they are now systematically reserved for road cycling with this group. Besides it being a good way to explore amazing parts of the Peninsula on a road bike and to get fitter, I have been deeply touched by the acts of my friend and his other friends, all a handful of white South Africans. An Englishman and a Swiss man and his young son, also residents of Hout Bay, have since joined the “development club” and are happy to contribute in whatever way they can to it. All these people are happily married with families; they have no reason to escape their families on Tuesday late afternoons (a day on which I cannot join them) and Saturday mornings. Between the handful of them, and a little help from some private donors, they have purchased bicycles and other cycle paraphernalia, and then sourced a shed in which to keep them safely when not in use. A

Dutch company with interests in South Africa donates the cycling attire for the boys. So, twice a week, every Tuesday and Saturday, they take out a group of up to 20 boys between the ages of 12 and 18 on rides around the Peninsula. The faster of these boys, Group A, often take longer and harder routes, leaving the young ones, Group B, to be chaperoned by us. Some have also participated in the annual Cape Argus Cycle Tour for the first time last year; they also participate in other road bike events, including the most recent Tour de Worcester Cycle Tour in the Boland this past Sunday. Again, these are white South Africans who, without being pushed to do so, have gone out of their way to use personal time, energy and resources to give back to those who have less or, in many cases, nothing. They give selflessly without asking for anything in return. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many other such people around the country. While these South Africans come from all backgrounds, many of them are white; the same whites that we find easier to generalise about and to put down as doing nothing to help rebuild this country.

This piece is not meant to make a naïve claim in defence of all whites. I am a living witness to the existence of many white South African who still refuse to acknowledge that apartheid was wrong and, importantly, that it did lasting damage to all of us. Many of such white people are of the view that “apartheid ended in 1994 and blacks need to move on because they’re now in power”. This piece is not about the latter group.

I have, over the last number of years, been invited to sit on trusts, committees and boards of all forms of non-profit making organisations founded and driven by enthusiastic individuals who are driven to help others get out of all forms of hopeless situations. These private initiatives range from the popular ZipZap Circus School through the Old Mutual Two Oceans Marathon charities, Bob Skinstad’s “Bob for Good” organisation that donates much needed brand new school shoes to children in impoverished communities, the erstwhile “Kids with HIV Foundation” and, a few months ago, a group of local motorbike clubs who come together every year to collect stationery for schools and crèches in places like Kensington. The latter are mostly coloured bikers and were supported this year by none other than Mzoli Ngcawuzela, owner of the famous Mzoli’s eatery in Gugulethu.  I have met ordinary people doing extraordinary things; people who are little celebrated in the opinion pages of our dailies.  Perhaps it is safe to say that South Africa whites are like moving targets: for every one of them who is all negative about everything in the new order, there’s another one who is a community builder because it’s the right thing to do.

There is no doubt that it is still helpful and necessary to continue unpacking and addressing the root causes of the things that continue to divide us, but it is also important to stop from time to time to remind ourselves that not all is black or white or yellow in our confused maze of social issues. There are many nouveau rich blacks who do not give a cent to charity and there are many whites who give to support the less fortunate.

What South Africa needs is the fostering of a voluntary culture of building communities for the good of all of us. Those who have more, irrespective of their background, must be encouraged – perhaps even incentivised – to share willingly, not under the threat of a whip in the form of punitive taxes.

Let us to stop a bit more often to acknowledge the many silent builders of bridges between our communities for a better Cape Town and South Africa. There are hundreds of these people walking silently amongst us, perhaps even wondering if we, regular contributors to the opinion pages of our daily newspapers and radio talk-shows, live in the same world as they do; many of us argue while they get on with the job!

Solly Moeng
Cape Town

Click here to download article as printed in Cape Argus on September 14, 2011.

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 some exciting 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 huddles 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 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 recently when – for the first time in my life – 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. 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 laughed from time to time whenever funny remarks were made in Afrikaans. There was a palpable strict 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-five 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. It is for this reason that all levels of government seats provide for interpretation services, or so they should.

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.

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.

The Chernobyl RBMK reactor met its unfortunate end as a result of reactor design faults that should never have happened. 25 years after Chernobyl, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Japan experienced a meltdown following a power failure that prevented the nuclear rods from being normally cooled by sea water. The generators that should have kicked-in as secondary cooling power sources also failed as a result of the force of the Tsunami. The main differences between the two accidents, 25 years apart, are the reactor design and the absence of human deaths in Japan. The hundreds of people who died were killed by the force of the Tsunami that razed motor vehicles, farms, boats, buildings and homes, destroying everything in its path. Residents and workers were moved away from the NPP as a precautionary measure, to protect them from possible radiation. 

Nuclear Power brand perceptions

Fukushima gave a fresh set of reasons, albeit often more emotionally exaggerated than rational and factual, to Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear lobbies to increase their rhetoric and to scare away any plans by other countries to develop nuclear power. This is despite the fact that more people die almost daily from motorcar and plane accidents than there have been any deaths from nuclear power plants since Chernobyl in 1986. The nuclear industry, on the other hand, has also been jostled back into life by increased attacks on it; especially after countries like Germany and Italy decided to adopt laws that would phase out nuclear power and let existing nuclear power stations, in the case of Germany, to be retired by 2022. However, unsure about its ability to support all of its energy needs through renewable sources alone, Germany is unlikely to stop importing nuclear power from neighbouring France. The overwhelming perceptions about nuclear energy are that it is very dangerous, therefore unsafe and should be done away with once and for all and altogether.

Top-level Nuclear Crisis Communications Management

The post-Fukushima avalanche of media interviews of nuclear top guns such as the Chairman of Britain’s Nuclear Industry Association, Lord Hutton (Former Labour Minister) and that of John Ritch, Director General of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), provided a good indication of the panic in the industry.

More than the immediate material devastations in Japan, Fukushima has created material for crisis communications for the World Nuclear Association. WNA’s John Ritch delivered this warning at a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety: “The lesson of Fukushima, from the event and its worldwide reverberations, is that our response must combine ever safer practice with ever better public education. Without both, the foundations of nuclear power will remain dangerously fragile, and so too will the prospects for the worldwide clean-energy revolution on which our planet’s environmental future so crucially depends”. The IAEA Ministerial Conference was called by the IAEA to draw on the lessons from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP in order to strengthen nuclear safety throughout the world. In the speech: “Fukushima – Shaping a Sound Response“, John Ritch pointed out that the world population will continue its explosive growth, global electricity demand will continue to grow even faster; that the need to cut worldwide carbon emissions remains essential and it remains true that we can achieve a global clean-energy revolution only with a vastly expanded use of nuclear power.

Taking the Nuclear Communications bull by the horns

In the face of often emotional outbursts by the anti-nuclear lobbies, the world nuclear fraternity needs to carefully study attitudes and reactions, as well as analyse the words of its opponents before formulating appropriately factual responses that will inform and educate even the most uneducated publics; for these are often used as unquestioning herds by the anti-nuclear lobby. The era of controlled gentlemanly silence by the nuclear fraternity should be a thing of the past because we now live in a world of competing noises, opinions, easily accessible and ubiquitous social media, as well as increasingly shortened attention spans. In fact, the nuclear communications bodies should take the initiative to lead from the front, ensuring that their communiqués are not just lame and defensive reactions to yet another emotional attack by the anti-nuclear lobbies.

There is much to be won; there is much to be lost!

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.

To a lesser extent – given the role of South Africa in African affairs, at least – can the same be said about President Jacob Zuma’s arrival into power earlier this year? What effect has his presidency had on Brand South Africa and on what note do we finish the year 2009? Looking back at the seemingly insurmountable legal woes that he faced before becoming head of state, as well as the relentless media and public onslaught, few would have imagined that he would be where he is today.

The sparkle in Brand South Africa had taken a few knocks and begun to wane in some quarters as a result of former President Mbeki’s stance on a number of key national issues (HIV AIDS Policies and views), regional crisis (Zimbabwe, Swaziland and the Sudan/Darfur), and international, multilateral issues (Myanmar and the UN vote against the use of rape as a weapon in a number of regional conflicts). Some people had even begun to question whether it still made sense to go on holding the much celebrated constitution of post-apartheid South Africa as the beacon of hope that would shine much needed light through Africa and the rest of the world.

President Zuma is a political master-mind of old. Even Helen Zille, leader of the main opposition party and Premier of the only province that is not governed by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), has admitted as much in an otherwise hard-hitting annual national government performance report card on national government performance. Over the months, we have seen how Zuma would use his dance moves and his infectious laughter and smile to charm his way into crowds who would otherwise have been angry at lack of service delivery or some other development. He has also skilfully alternated highly unpopular decisions with softer, more popular ones. His recent appointment of Advocate Menzi Simelane to the position of National Director of Public Prosecutions was quickly followed by the appointment of Mac Maharash, Lindiwe Zulu and Charles Nqakula to take over from former President Thabo Mbeki in dealing with the Zimbabwean crisis (What crisis?). The latter move somewhat took some pressure away from the Simelane decision, at least in as far as media attention is concerned; all this despite the DA’s refusal to stand down on the matter, proceeding to take it to court in Johannesburg. To me, the Zimbabwe move is just another clever political smokescreen, as it is an attempt to give an impression that a new assertive strategy has been adopted while all the leaders are doing is to buy more time to allow South Africa, as part of SADC and the AU, to try and get targeted sanctions lifted against Mugabe and his kleptocratic cronies and Zimbabwe readmitted into the Common Wealth. Rewarding the recidivist Robert Mugabe before he delivers on his part of the responsibility towards creating stability in Zimbabwe is hardly the right way to go. These latest attempts constitute a clever ploy because they force all close watchers of the situation to be “reasonable” and give more time to the new Zuma team on Zimbabwe. Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe continues to undermine the MDC and to frustrate all efforts to implement the multi-party agreements in Zimbabwe and Advocate Simelane silently settles into his new position, keeping a profile as low as possible.

Many have criticised President Zuma for trying to be everything to everyone; we have to admit that the man has no choice, given the opinionated and diverse nation that we are. He is, after all, President of all South Africans and has to be seen to be sympathetic to views from as many quarters as possible, even if he will not agree with all of them. This is how former President Mandela managed to make himself loved across all historic fault lines and, ironically, where former President Mbeki seems to have failed, as he got criticised – correctly or incorrectly – for being obsessed with being an African nationalist and Pan-Africanist who saw racism in everything.

Helen Zille was candid enough to acknowledge during several interviews following her party’s release of its report card that it was very hard to judge Jacob Zuma. The man is like a Public Relations moving target that requires highly advanced skills for anyone to pin it down on any one issue for long enough. A Canadian friend said the same thing about America; a quintessential moving target because for every criticism of US foreign policy or action, someone will point out something good that America has done in the world. In the end, all arguments about whether or not America is a bad country become a matter of personal opinion at some level and not a judgment that can be made in a general way. And so it is with Zuma. When asked whether I think Zuma is a good President, I often respond that he is, in a lot of ways, a better President than his predecessor. There are many things that I and many others would like him to do differently, no doubt, but he has thus far managed to dance his way along the tightrope between the many conflicting political poles that surround him within the tri-partite alliance and in South Africa as a whole. He is no longer the evil, corrupt, old-fashioned polygamist that many feared would propel South Africa straight into doom.

At continental level, Brand South Africa will always be, in some way, linked to the performance of Brand Africa. Failure by South Africa to criticise abuse of power elsewhere on the continent – always hiding behind SADC or AU processes – will always put us on the back foot vis-à-vis other powers in the world. While South Africa’s reluctance, indeed refusal, to be seen as “big brother” in Africa is understandable, this country is, in many ways, ahead of most other countries on the continent and will always be expected to play the role of leader and role model. How South Africa reacts to Uganda’s attempt to introduce an archaic law that will ban homosexuality and force other citizens to report anyone known to be a practicing homosexual will also say a lot about South Africa’s own stance on human rights and, by extension, the image of this country. Nelson Mandela was applauded all round when he declared that South Africa’s foreign policy would be underpinned by its pursuit of respect for Human Rights. Now in power, Zuma has an opportunity to start where Mandela left off and thus help position South Africa as a shining light in Africa and among the global community of nations.

While it can be argued that, on the whole, South Africa’s image as a serious player worthy of respect has somewhat improved in the region and around the world since the last elections, much more needs to be done – especially in dealing with the callous abuse of tax payers’ money to fund the lavish lifestyles and materialist appetites of senior politicians – in order to restore our image within our borders.

The road is still long ahead of us, but 2009 ends on a fairly positive note for 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.

To a lesser extent – given the role of South Africa in African affairs, at least – can the same be said about President Jacob Zuma’s arrival into power earlier this year? What effect has his presidency had on Brand South Africa and on what note do we finish the year 2009? Looking back at the seemingly insurmountable legal woes that he faced before becoming head of state, as well as the relentless media and public onslaught, few would have imagined that he would be where he is today.

The sparkle in Brand South Africa had taken a few knocks and begun to wane in some quarters as a result of former President Mbeki’s stance on a number of key national issues (HIV AIDS Policies and views), regional crisis (Zimbabwe, Swaziland and the Sudan/Darfur), and international, multilateral issues (Myanmar and the UN vote against the use of rape as a weapon in a number of regional conflicts). Some people had even begun to question whether it still made sense to go on holding the much celebrated constitution of post-apartheid South Africa as the beacon of hope that would shine much needed light through Africa and the rest of the world.

President Zuma is a political master-mind of old. Even Helen Zille, leader of the main opposition party and Premier of the only province that is not governed by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), has admitted as much in an otherwise hard-hitting annual national government performance report card on national government performance. Over the months, we have seen how Zuma would use his dance moves and his infectious laughter and smile to charm his way into crowds who would otherwise have been angry at lack of service delivery or some other development. He has also skilfully alternated highly unpopular decisions with softer, more popular ones. His recent appointment of Advocate Menzi Simelane to the position of National Director of Public Prosecutions was quickly followed by the appointment of Mac Maharash, Lindiwe Zulu and Charles Nqakula to take over from former President Thabo Mbeki in dealing with the Zimbabwean crisis (What crisis?). The latter move somewhat took some pressure away from the Simelane decision, at least in as far as media attention is concerned; all this despite the DA’s refusal to stand down on the matter, proceeding to take it to court in Johannesburg. To me, the Zimbabwe move is just another clever political smokescreen, as it is an attempt to give an impression that a new assertive strategy has been adopted while all the leaders are doing is to buy more time to allow South Africa, as part of SADC and the AU, to try and get targeted sanctions lifted against Mugabe and his kleptocratic cronies and Zimbabwe readmitted into the Common Wealth. Rewarding the recidivist Robert Mugabe before he delivers on his part of the responsibility towards creating stability in Zimbabwe is hardly the right way to go. These latest attempts constitute a clever ploy because they force all close watchers of the situation to be “reasonable” and give more time to the new Zuma team on Zimbabwe. Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe continues to undermine the MDC and to frustrate all efforts to implement the multi-party agreements in Zimbabwe and Advocate Simelane silently settles into his new position, keeping a profile as low as possible.

Many have criticised President Zuma for trying to be everything to everyone; we have to admit that the man has no choice, given the opinionated and diverse nation that we are. He is, after all, President of all South Africans and has to be seen to be sympathetic to views from as many quarters as possible, even if he will not agree with all of them. This is how former President Mandela managed to make himself loved across all historic fault lines and, ironically, where former President Mbeki seems to have failed, as he got criticised – correctly or incorrectly – for being obsessed with being an African nationalist and Pan-Africanist who saw racism in everything.

Helen Zille was candid enough to acknowledge during several interviews following her party’s release of its report card that it was very hard to judge Jacob Zuma. The man is like a Public Relations moving target that requires highly advanced skills for anyone to pin it down on any one issue for long enough. A Canadian friend said the same thing about America; a quintessential moving target because for every criticism of US foreign policy or action, someone will point out something good that America has done in the world. In the end, all arguments about whether or not America is a bad country become a matter of personal opinion at some level and not a judgment that can be made in a general way. And so it is with Zuma. When asked whether I think Zuma is a good President, I often respond that he is, in a lot of ways, a better President than his predecessor. There are many things that I and many others would like him to do differently, no doubt, but he has thus far managed to dance his way along the tightrope between the many conflicting political poles that surround him within the tri-partite alliance and in South Africa as a whole. He is no longer the evil, corrupt, old-fashioned polygamist that many feared would propel South Africa straight into doom.

At continental level, Brand South Africa will always be, in some way, linked to the performance of Brand Africa. Failure by South Africa to criticise abuse of power elsewhere on the continent – always hiding behind SADC or AU processes – will always put us on the back foot vis-à-vis other powers in the world. While South Africa’s reluctance, indeed refusal, to be seen as “big brother” in Africa is understandable, this country is, in many ways, ahead of most other countries on the continent and will always be expected to play the role of leader and role model. How South Africa reacts to Uganda’s attempt to introduce an archaic law that will ban homosexuality and force other citizens to report anyone known to be a practicing homosexual will also say a lot about South Africa’s own stance on human rights and, by extension, the image of this country. Nelson Mandela was applauded all round when he declared that South Africa’s foreign policy would be underpinned by its pursuit of respect for Human Rights. Now in power, Zuma has an opportunity to start where Mandela left off and thus help position South Africa as a shining light in Africa and among the global community of nations.

While it can be argued that, on the whole, South Africa’s image as a serious player worthy of respect has somewhat improved in the region and around the world since the last elections, much more needs to be done – especially in dealing with the callous abuse of tax payers’ money to fund the lavish lifestyles and materialist appetites of senior politicians – in order to restore our image within our borders.

The road is still long ahead of us, but 2009 ends on a fairly positive note for Brand South Africa!

Current emotional discussions on the need to rebrand the Springbok Team and how the process going forward will be managed are interesting to continue watching closely.

Central to all of these changes has been the need, no doubt, to replace negative, apartheid era, perceptions with more acceptable – some say “inclusive” – ones. Brands are, after all, “perceptions in the mind of the [beholder]”, according to David A. Aaker & Erich Joachimsthaler, in “Brand Leadership” (2002, p.17). Despite all appearances, it can be argued that, no matter how flawed some of the processes might be accused to have been, the changes made to apartheid era brand names were made in order to facilitate the creation of better dialogues between the geographic places and citizens who have to relate to them in their everyday lives. In pure brand talk, the changes were made to facilitate better dialogues between the “products” and their targeted “consumers”, the public. The Africanisation of personal names is also a form of “identity reclaim” or indigenisation. Unlike during the apartheid era, when Africans were expected to give at least one “Christian” (read “European”) name to their offspring, fewer post-apartheid African parents name their children Peter, Mary, or Elizabeth.

Many post-apartheid municipal, provincial and national public administrators have, upon assuming office, jumped quickly onto the brand-wagon, attempting first to deal with the image of what they were employed to administer before even focusing their attention on their core business of service-delivery. Public sector re-branding is no doubt a costly affair that, ineluctably, also makes many enemies, especially when it encounters the opposition of civil society interest groups who think that public administrators should focus all their energy on the provision of services and nothing else. This is even more complex in the South African context because opponents to any attempt at re-branding are often seen to be apologists of the apartheid past, people who continue to live in denial about the effects of apartheid on the minds of those who were at the receiving end of discriminatory apartheid policies. Furthermore, racial undertones are almost always evoked whenever opposition to rebranding is made public. While all of this makes for rich public conversations, it also calls for a need for a balanced approach in re-branding processes. New brands, after all, have to appeal to all of the people that have to associate with them in any way. It is always vital to try and adopt a balanced, consultative, approach that would effectively remove past negative stigmas while minimising the alienation of those who are opposed to change.

The chief mistake that is often committed by many public sector administrators when they embark on rebranding processes is to omit sufficient budgeting for post-rebranding communications. In many instances, new brands are left without a “guardian”, someone – or a team of people – whose job it will be to ensure that they protect the integrity of the new brand against misuse through bad, unintended, applications. No successful brand, private or public, succeeds without a “Brand Manager” of sorts. There is even increasing talk in the industry about the need for “Chief Brand Officer” (CBO) positions to be integrated into company structures by organisations that are serious about maximising the value of their brands. A brand is like a slow growing tree that will one day give a good shade. In order to do that, it has to be carefully nurtured over time, planted in the right soil and fed with right quantities of water at appropriate intervals.

Lasting brands are not fast-tracked through growth processes. The process that saw the latest rebranding of Johannesburg International Airport to O.R. Tambo International was, in many respects, one of the most well managed in recent South African public sector rebranding. There was opposition, firm persuasion, and swift post-rebranding application of the new visuals on all signage leading to and from the airport, all capped by a clear and consistent post-rebranding communication strategy. Even pilots addressing their air passengers upon arrival and departure were encouraged to move quickly to referring to the airport by its new name.

The other challenge often faced by public sector brands, apart from a perennial lack of resources dedicated to their management, is the high turn-over of marketing and communications staff, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the tendency by many newly employed senior managers or directors to want to re-brand in their own image, thus failing to appreciate the need to nurture brands that were developed under the watch of their immediate predecessors. This is often the result of excessive “personalisation” of public sector brands by their internal sponsors. The Western Cape’s “Home for All” campaign is a good example of this. While the merits and aims of this campaign were noble in all respects, the fact that the campaign’s brand was, from the onset, too linked and attached to the person of former Premier Ibrahim Rasool, has not helped. His successor and intra-party political opponent, Premier Lynn Brown, is known to be opposed to the campaign and is therefore not expected to dedicate the same level of resources, if any at all, for its promotion. In fact, word is already making the rounds that there are plans to “kill off” the Home for All campaign and replace it with something else!

In order to be successful, (re)branding processes, whether in the private or public sector, should never be seen as short-term journeys aimed at achieving short-term goals!

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.

Even more crucially, questions were asked about the extent to which the new leader would embody the new South Africa and be representative of the DA’s growing support base without alienating its traditional white minority constituency. Also, by extension, the underlying question was to know the extent to which the new leader would create a Democratic Alliance in which a more diverse South African support base would see itself reflected.

Other commentators were eager to know if the main opposition party would finally elect an African as its leader, as some seemed to believe that this was the sole guarantee to winning the DA much wider “legitimacy” across the board. Was it going to be a Barack Obama type or a Hilary Clinton type? While there is no doubt that the DA required a latter type of leader to help it hold onto its traditional voter base – as it was more in tune with its perceived Brand Identity – it could also be argued that a Barack Obama type had a better chance of winning it newer constituencies at a faster rate. But then, while there might have been available and potential Barack Obama types in skin tone alone, none of them – even less so its Chairman – seemed to possess the drawing power of the American Democratic Presidential candidate. In the end, the DA members chose to stick to the “devil that they were familiar with”.

Following the leadership change that culminated in the appointment of its first female leader in the person of the equally combative Helen Zille – subsequently dubbed “Godzille” – cameras shifted their focus on the leadership race in the African National Congress (ANC), described by many as divisive.  After many months of speculation, this process also culminated in the election, at the party’s 52^nd congress in Polokwane, of an almost totally new leadership team – often referred to in some quarters as the “coalition of the disgruntled”. It was clear that this election was also a total rejection of the party’s previous leadership, especially its president, for all sorts of reasons that have been – and continue to be – sufficiently covered in the mainstream media.

The question that we ask here is to know the extent to which current media and public perceptions are representative of the traditional ANC Brand as the country’s foremost liberation organisation. Have voter/general public perceptions changed? What does the ANC Brand represent to generations of South Africans who will vote for the first time in 2009? Do they have the same romantic view of it as did generations who grew up during the 1980s and in earlier decades? Will they make strong associations between the party’s uncontested icons – such as Nelson Rholihlahla Mandela – the ANC Brand as older voter generations knew it, and the current crop of leaders, or have these romantic associations been dissipated and lost because of current developments in the ruling party? If this is the case, what should political parties like the ANC be doing to protect their brands? Should their communications people be thinking of the party and its leadership as brands that must be well managed and protected at all times, or do the views of Brand Consumers, voters in this case, not matter to them? What about other political parties? How appealing are their brands? What should they be doing to strengthen their brand positioning and take advantage of the recent “tides in the affairs of (political) men and women”?

Judging from some of the careless things that have been said in the name of the ANC in public, one could be forgiven for thinking that some new-generation ANC leaders believe that the ruling party is guaranteed the vote of the masses (read “African”) forever; that not much needs to be done in order to secure this vote and – in the case of provinces like the Western Cape – crucial votes from minority population groups. I have even heard some people saying that the ANC has accepted that it will most probably lose the Western Cape in 2009 and that this will be a small price to pay. What does this attitude do to people who still want to support the ANC in this province?

As we move further away from the land-mark 1994, South African voters will increasingly allow general public perceptions – often fed by the media and the public behaviour and utterances of political leaders – to influence the direction of their votes. Voter choice will increasingly be affected by associations that people have in their minds when they think of different political parties and the people who lead them. This should be a strong reason for the ANC to continue fighting against the Zapiro shower on the head of its president, as the more frequently this stigma is repeated, the harder it might end up becoming for voters to imagine him without it.

It can also be argued that South African value systems and expectations, especially in urban areas, will continue to evolve into new, less racially-polarised moulds that will also play a role in voter choices. This is particularly the case with younger generations of South Africans who socialise increasingly across historical racial and socio-economic divides. The ANC cannot forever rely on ostensibly unquestioning “African voter allegiance” for its survival.

The fact that South African opposition parties are too small and have their own – often historical – brand baggage that continues to hold them back, has worked in the ANC favour up to now. For example, it suffices to listen to a DA spokesperson speaking against geographic name changes to see why it is hard for traditional ANC voters to give their votes to anyone else, especially the DA, despite whatever level of confusion they might be experiencing with the current direction of the ruling party. I have heard opposition spokespeople opposing name change processes by giving reasons like “nobody knows who that person is” – like they did when Johannesburg International was about to be renamed O.R. Tambo International – or arguing that the person about to be honoured was never an important player in our history; conveniently forgetting that the names of most anti-apartheid struggle heroes and heroines were banned from being published during apartheid years – hence the unfamiliarity of many of them. This kind of contempt and utter insensitivity will always play into the hands of the ruling party.

What are the first things that come to mind when one thinks of George Bush, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Sarkozy, Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, Omar El Bachir, Robert Mugabe, and others? Does it matter to the same degree in France, for instance, as it does in South Africa, that the leadership of a political party is not racially and culturally representative? Why is this kind of representation more important here in South Africa than it seems in, say Germany? Do South African racial minorities also need to see reflections of themselves in the new ANC leadership? Do they have to? What kind of ministerial mix are we going to see when the new government – likely to be led by the ANC – takes over the reins in 2009? Will it be seen to be culturally and racially inclusive or will it be seen to be representative of only one section of the population of this diverse country? Should consideration be given to creating quotas in this sense?  Does it matter?

In conclusion, as our society evolves further, there is a less and less refutable need for political parties to take more care of how their brands are perceived, to be more in tune with changing voter expectations and values, and to structure the behaviour of their representatives and messages to appeal to the increasingly sophisticated South African electorate. Old fashioned allegiances will progressively lose their appeal as our society evolves into the future.

How do our political parties want to be perceived?

Personally, if I were to be asked whom I would like to vote for today – based only on my perception of existing political party brands – I would probably ask to be given more time to think about it!

Julius Malema represents many things to many people. To some, mostly whites, he is the personification of a future South African Robert Mugabe and everything that comes with a Robert Mugabe persona while, to others, mostly young blacks still hoping that the ANC will one day deliver them the much awaited Eldorado, he represents hope. He speaks the language of the streets. The hope that he represents is that the apparent neglect of the older ANC generation will one day be a thing of the past when Malema’s generation of leaders – accompanied by the likes of Fikile Mbalula, Malusi Gigaba, Menzi Simelane and others – takes control and matters such as land reform and real transformation of the South African economy are taken more seriously. To these hopeful Malema supporters, there is growing urgency to make room for more than just a handful of black connected people in the land of tender and business opportunities. To those who see a future Robert Mugabe, Malema spells a guaranteed end to Nelson Mandela’s dream of a unified, non-racial, non-sexist, prosperous South Africa. But the truth lies somewhere in-between these two extreme readings of Julius Malema the politician.

No honest and careful analysis of Julius Malema’s entire utterances points conclusively to a man who hates all white people and who is bent at destroying Nelson Mandela’s ideal South Africa. Julius Malema is simply a young man and politician (he prefers to be called an “activist”), no doubt also shrewd, who is tired of waiting for the “historical other side” to fully extend its hand of friendship and share the spoils of the skewed history of this country.

Many disinterested observers of the “Malema phenomenon” also seem to agree that the man is not a fool. At 27 years of age, he still has time in his hands and on his side. He has political capital that he doesn’t have to be in a hurry to gamble away in its entirety before time runs out; in any case, no time is running out for Julius Malema, at least not yet. We have seen how, on several occasions over the last few years, he has come close to what some thought – even hoped – would be his political precipice, only to be revived again as the political landscape continued to unfold in front of him and other political lifebuoys got thrown in his direction, seemingly by chance. Some thought he’d never survive his very public attacks on then President Thabo Mbeki even while the latter was still powerful and in office; then there was the time when he seemed to publicly chastise President Zuma for his reported bedroom shenanigans and, apparently, his failure to respect the “one man one sexual partner” call that has become de rigueur in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini took offence and demanded that Malema explains his remarks. Following a highly publicized encounter – and a less publicized apology – the two hugged and kissed; Malema having promised to be more careful in his utterances on polygamy. More recently – and apparently referring to the Guptas – he launched another public attack on families who took advantage of their political connections to amass massive wealth at the expense of the poor of this country. Despite their often reported clumsiness in responding to criticism, Malema’s spokespeople have always managed to explain themselves and his utterances out of very sticky situations. Malema himself has also demonstrated amazing street wisdom in explaining himself out of such sticky situations; often claiming to have been quoted out of context, or simply misquoted by white owned media with mischievous intensions, bent on destroying his name.

But Malema is indeed not a fool. His recent interview on BBC Hard Talk and a subsequent address that he gave to members and guests of the Cape Town Professional Forum at Canal Walk showed that the man is good at playing his audience. He skillfully dishes out exactly what the audience in front of him has to hear. Like the political animal that he is, he spends the time before being called to the podium carefully observing his audience and, once he gets hold of the microphone, he’d give them not only what he thinks they want to hear, but also what he believes needs to be said because the older politicians – seemingly with more to lose – are often too scared, or too wise, to say.

Never having seen him in real life before, and going only by what is reported on him in the media, I feared that he would embarrass me in both instances. I was wrong. In fact, I was pleasantly impressed by the man. During the Hard Talk interview, he calmly, but firmly, answered each question without flinching or giving any impression that he was caught in or pushed into a corner. At the Professional Forum in Cape Town, he came in and, when called up to make his address, spoke for what seemed like an hour and half without reading from prepared notes. At no point did he seem to fumble, looking for things to say. Every sentence that he uttered seemed to strike the right cord with his audience. People stood up and clapped, sang songs in his praise and swore to put their anger against the ANC aside to support the movement and not, as implored Malema, individuals who fail the movement. He generally – not specifically – acknowledged the mistakes that have been made in the name of the ANC but carefully drew a distinction between the movement which, according to him, has never made a mistake, and individuals who often get called forward to help advance the cause only to be tempted by earthly things and end up going the wrong way and ending up disappointing the movement. The ANC, Malema insisted, should not be punished for the errors committed by individuals. The mixed audience was ecstatic.

He also spoke in terms of a “liberated South Africa” and another South Africa, here in the Western Cape, which could only be liberated if the electorate were to make the right choices when the elections come. Almost in jest, he reminded those who were going to vote here that whether or not this part of South Africa would also be liberated depended entirely on them. People living in “liberated” parts of South Africa could only standby, watch and give moral support.

The Julius Malema that I saw both in the BBC Hard Talk interview and at the Business Forum in Cape Town was not the one that I had expected to see and hear. He struck me as mature and someone who knew exactly what he was talking about and where he was going with his address. He also quoted several historic truths that more politically correct people would not dare say in the presence of the media; things that we, South Africans, must develop the maturity to deal with in a more open manner; lest they continue to fester like sores and destroy Mandela’s dream, our collective dream. Nelson Mandela, argued Malema, expertly played the role of much needed unifier soon after the 1994 political changes, having led the fight for the political emancipation of black people in South Africa. But he also knew – and acknowledged – that the bigger battle of economic emancipation would still need to be fought by those who would come after him, that this would be the mother of all battles, and that it would be a long one.

But the question remains: how should we, South Africans, deal honestly with our past without destroying prospects for a better shared future in doing so?

The brand management implications of the ongoing and extremely polarising debate about race, political affiliation, and belonging in the context of the Western Cape in general and Cape Town in particular seem to be underestimated by all involved. We continue to talk past one another and to selectively read what the other has written or said before we respond, often, with what appears to be off-the-shelf-and-ready-to-use-vitriol. Our responses and contribution to the ongoing debate continue to be clouded by the colours that we want to support – political and pigmentation – instead of the general good of all the residents of this beautiful province and city.

Issues relating to place names, access by previously marginalised individuals and communities, economic benefit by communities living in areas adjacent to nature reserves and other tourist attractions in the province, all have important bearing on how these people perceive themselves vis-à-vis the collective Cape Town and Western Cape brand(s). They also have bearing on the level of pride that the people will demonstrate in them. Since brands are built over many years and that it can take as much time for them to be firmly and favourably/positively positioned in the minds of their target audiences and the people who are of them, it is imperative that a stronger sense of shared belonging be cultivated early, rather than later, in the process. The children who will be adolescents in the next five years and beyond need to be helped to grow a better, more positive sense of ambassadorship for the Cape Town and Western Cape brand(s). The attributes of this brand have to go beyond the physical level and appeal to the cultural and the social – and indeed spiritual – aspects of what it is to be of this city and province. In other words, a stronger sense of shared belonging – across all religious, political, cultural, and racial lines – has to be consciously invested in by all levels of leadership – be it political, business, cultural, or religious.

It is principally for this reason that I have chosen to be in support of a collective leadership that will come in and aim not only to concentrate on delivering social services as if all else is normal in Cape Town and the Western Cape, but that will also consciously put in place strategies aimed at healing the historical divides that are at the root of ongoing political and racial mud-slinging. This stance is not meant to imply that the equitable delivery of social services and exposure of prosecutable corruption – as some might choose to selectively read this piece to be about – are not important. The delivery of social services and fight against corruption constitute normal activities that should be expected from any democratically elected leadership. The key, particularly in the context of the Western Cape, is that this collective leadership has to be mindful of where we come from as a country and of the details of past policies that led us to be such a divided people today. It is only when we acknowledge this past and agree to pledge – like former President Nelson Mandela did – that “Never again shall there be…” – that we can specifically put aside all remnants of this dark past. The future that we all wish to build for generations of South Africans to come can never be built on foundations of lies and denial, but of acknowledgement and willingness to do things differently.

A brand is like a slow growing tree that will one day give a good shade. This tree has to be grown and nurtured consistently over a number of years. The questions that we should all ask ourselves are: what kind of Cape Town and the Western Cape do we want to see in the next ten, twenty, fifty years and beyond. What kind of associations do we want future generations to make between their sense of belonging and various geographic and cultural icons in, around the City of Cape Town, and beyond? We also have to ask ourselves how they would describe living in Cape Town to friends and associates in other parts of South Africa and the world. Do we want future generations of coloureds to continue claiming – as some adults do today – that they are more of this part of our land than their (ethnic) African counterparts? Do we want future generations of (ethnic) Africans to continue complaining about exclusion and racism in the hands of everyone else? Do we want future generations of adolescent whites to continue – as some would have been taught by their parents – going on about the good old days when everyone knew their place in society, when there were no policies of affirmative action and BEE favouring (ethnic) Africans, Asians and coloureds? How do we want future generations of Cape Townians, therefore South Africans, to identify with one another and with what it is to be from this part of our country? And what sort of things should we be doing today to build proudly South African brands that will bring our people together despite their often superficial, yet divisive, cultural, political, and religious differences?

I had the fortune of visiting the islands of Hawaii a couple of years ago. In fact, it was during this trip that I made the decision that upon my return to South Africa I would come and specifically make a home in Cape Town. During this trip, on the island Oahu, I was tempted to believe that the citizens of the island had been collectively trained to display their Hawaiian pride in the manner that they carried themselves with locals and foreigners alike. My visit was not just a short, whirlwind, tour, but one that enabled me to experience amazingly friendly discussions with taxi drivers, waiters and waitresses, a hair dresser (I always get a hair cut in foreign lands in order to get a bit of the local gossip), car rental employees, bus drivers, and other people that I had the fortune to encounter during my stay. Not a single one of those people betrayed the friendliness that is always preceded by their welcoming “Aloha” (local greeting). I left Hawaii convinced that the people of that archipelago truly live their brand and that their brand lives in them. They know what it means to have a shared sense of core identities despite their cultural diversity. Naturally, their history has not been what we, in this part of the world, had to go through. Nevertheless, I believe that if we were to consciously start cultivating a stronger sense of belonging for all of our people, it would not be an impossible dream to realise over time.

Many people have gone on about democracy and the need to accept a democratic electoral outcome. It would be hard, and perhaps even silly, to argue against that. But, in the end, I would like to argue that it doesn’t make sense to limit our political options to cruel and often destructive conflicting alternatives that end up with the citizenry sitting on an unending “them and us” see-saw. We need a transformational, collective, leadership with which a much greater number of citizens and residents can identify. Its political mandate would be guaranteed solely by strategies that it puts in place to deliberately heal the historical divides on the one hand and, on the other hand, its equitable delivery of social services to the citizens. There remain too many physical spatial divides of the past, all determined by pigmentation and culture, that may appear to be insurmountable at first glance. But these divides can be overcome by innovative planning with a deliberate intention to bring our people together. Football stadiums, for instance, need not only be built in the flats because some choose to assume that that is where lovers of this sport will always be located. Unless we try the Nazi, Rwandan or Yugoslavian fits – which would never achieve anything positive – South Africa, and therefore Cape Town and the Western Cape, will always be a multi-racial, cultural and religious society.

We have to live with that and to start concentrating on the positive things that bring us together as a people and not, as in the past, the things that could be used to keep us apart, filled with almost suicidal prejudice. For this to happen, we need to insist on a political leadership that will make it one of its clearly articulated goals to heal the historical divides – for they have to be dealt with – and not one that pits groups against one another by exploiting their unfounded fears of the other for short-term political gains. That is how we can start building collective and proudly South African brands for future generations of South Africa in Cape Town and the Western Cape can identify with and share.

Numerous opportunities have become available for the national ruling party to correct misperceptions and prove itself worthy of the support of the Western Cape electorate, but even these were squandered through irresponsible remarks and conduct by some party representatives; here and elsewhere in the country.

It seems to be a generally shared opinion by many people in Western Cape that this province is in some way one entity and the rest of South Africa is another entity; almost in the same way that many South Africans talk about South Africa and the rest of Africa or, worse still, South Africa and Africa. When they glance over the imagined border into South Africa many people in this province see, read about and hear things that they would rather continue keeping at bay, across their perception borders, through the power of the ballot box. They see endless reports of corruption and blatant abuse of public resources by politicians and government officials who all seem to walk about with the assurance that they will always get away with what they do – and many times they do get away with it; especially when they are positioned higher in the apex of the power and privilege triangle. They also see the manner in which apparently ruling party connected people jump the queues and benefit from very generous financial support from the Lotto funds than more deserving organizations and causes do; they see and hear Julius Malema making some of the darnest remarks about people – especially Western Cape Premier Helen Zille whom many of them admire; they read about the most ridiculous abuse of state resources being justified through the notorious “Ministerial Handbook”; they see what they perceive to be the bad side of BEE and BBEEE implementation practices; they see the much talked-about accident causing pot-holes in the roads, as well as the degradation that is reported to have happened to some of the country’s good roads due to neglect by corrupt and incompetent government officials. Here, closer to home, the media coverage of the internecine political battles for positions and privilege over the past few years have also not helped the ruling party regain confidence. There will remain doubt in the eyes of many voters for as long as there is no clarity as to whether previous leadership – under Mcebisi Skhwatsha – is fully behind the recently elected team, led by Marius Fransman, or not. The many negatives have accumulated to the point of overshadowing the many positive achievements by the ANC in governing the country since 1994. In the Western Cape, the seemingly late decision by the ANC to “somaar” allocate financial and leadership resources to wrenching Western Cape local governments from the DA, and backing Tony Ehrenreich’s bid for the Cape Town Metro mayor’s chain, was also just that; too late!

The success of any brand in communicating effectively with its target audience relies heavily on the kind of associations that the targeted audience makes in regard to the brand. The seriousness with which the brand is taken depends entirely on how it is perceived and whether its own positioning is consistent with the messages that it seeks to communicate or not. Clearly, there are too many negative associations linked to Brand ANC in the Western Cape. These associations are not linked solely to what the ruling party does in the Western Cape and how it does what it does; they are also linked to what the party is being reported – correctly or incorrectly – to be doing at the levels of national government, where it still holds sway, and other provincial and local government levels throughout the country. The conduct of individuals who are seen to represent the ruling party will always impact on Brand ANC; the watchers of all this will not forget when elections come. The psychological result in the Western Cape electorate is one of deep seated fear for of what would happen were the ANC to win control of this province again. Justified or not, the ANC must look in the mirror, unpack the causes of this fear and deal honestly with each one of them.

Though understandable to a point, the pre-electoral obsession with the “C- Vote” (Coloured Vote) is also often too clumsily handled by the ruling party spokespeople. Remarks about the need to go for the C-Vote, often more vociferous just before elections and, seemingly, divorced from concrete steps to engage more meaningfully with communities who represent this vote are, at best, shallow in their opportunism. The whole thing has been made to seem like engagement with the so-called minority votes – the C-Vote, the I-Vote (Indian) and, some claim, the increasingly marginalized W-Vote (white) – comes only as an after-thought for winning these strategic electoral communities. No one party in the Western Cape, even the DA, can lie on its laurels and relax after the crucial votes have been bagged. In the same way, the ANC cannot realistically carry the same campaign message in the Western Cape that the party would use successfully in places like the Limpopo and Kwazulu-Natal. Notwithstanding the underlying and shared concerns about joblessness, poverty, crime, service delivery and others, the socio-political landscape is different in different parts of South Africa and should be treated as such. Political parties have something to sell and they need to learn how to best package their offerings to suite each targeted audience without necessarily deceiving any of them. The one glove fits all approach has not worked in the past and it has little chance of working in the future. The bulk of the Western Cape electorate is famously capable of non-partisanship when elections come. Its voting patterns are very responsive to real issues and political brand perceptions in the period leading to and during elections. NB: Every moment between elections is considered part of a period “leading to (the next) elections”! This is where the national ruling party seems to often get it wrong.

The solution to the ANC’s challenges in the Western Cape does not lie in last minute rallying around seemingly hastily chosen Coloured electoral representatives simply because they will speak the language in Bishop Lavis and Retreat; it lies in ensuring that Brand ANC remains squeaky clean throughout South Africa and that individuals who abuse their positions for personal gain or who are hopelessly incompetent to do their work are removed from those positions and replaced with better people. To plant a lasting positive image in the minds of the electorate, whether in the Western Cape or elsewhere, the ANC will have to act decisively in rooting out corruption wherever it is found; initiate serious voter-sensitive amendments to the notorious “Ministerial Handbook” and consistently manage jealously its brand reputation. Failure to do this will ensure that the recent 62% (previously 65% and higher) continues to dwindle at each successive election.

The 2011 Local Government election results mark the first time since 1994 that any one party won the kind of majority taken by the DA in the Western Cape. If things continue this way, this country will end up with two political giants facing each other at each major election, probably an eventuality that might be better for democracy, as no politicians from any side of the divide will continue thinking that votes are unconditionally due to them!

Veteran journalist and political commentator, Allister Sparks, proposes in his last column before the elections (Cape Times, Thursday, April 16, 2009) that Zapiro should “scrap the shower and draw a dark cloud over [Jacob Zuma]’s head instead”. A few days before that, I had stopped to chat to a neighbor who swore to me that she would never vote for a man who gets drunk and falls stupidly on his bum. This, she said, was something that she had been told by someone else who saw an intoxicated Jacob Zuma dance at his last wedding in 2008.

Now, many of us know that Jacob Zuma, like the rest of us, does many things but getting drunk is not one of them! One could go on using up lots of column space relating the number of things that people say about Jacob Zuma. This long list is made up of things that range from the true and plausible and, unfortunately, then stretch into a longer part that is made up of pure hearsay and speculation. The sad thing about all this is that things that make up the latter part of the list tend to stick harder to Brand Zuma and require more work in order to get rid of them. The most recent lists also consist of things that many soothsayers among us tell us will happen once Brand Zuma takes over the country’s reins, including damage to the rule of law. Newspaper pages are full of predictions that only point the future of Brand South Africa in one direction, downwards. Clearly, many incidents of recent months and weeks have not helped.

I argued in one of my pieces in the past that South African voter choice will increasingly be determined, amongst others, by associations that people have in their minds when they think of different political leaders. I went on to argue that this should be a strong reason for the ANC to continue fighting against the Zapiro shower on the head of its president, as the more frequently this stigma is repeated, the harder it might be for voters to imagine him without it. In the minds of many in the general public – even people who never read newspapers – stories have been repeated over and over again that Jacob Zuma is a bad person who will never make a good president for South Africa. These stories have been repeated and reinterpreted, turned around so many times that different versions of the same anecdotes can be heard even in the most unlikely of quarters. While parts of the media might have played a role in initially spreading the stories, dinner time, braai time and gym steam-room time word of mouth has done even more to them further. This has gone on to the point where any attempt to defend the man on issues where he is unlikely to be guilty – such as falling drunk on his bum – are always met with utter suspicion and accusations that one is blindly defending him.

All successful brands – from product brands to service brands – have brand managers. People brands also need to be managed in a responsible manner. Brand Managers are appointed to ensure that all related communications are consistent with the core message and values, and that all deviation is dealt with as swiftly as possible. That is why courts in places like the US are replete with lawsuit cases by people and companies defending themselves against defamation of character. South Africans have also begun to take this line of defense very seriously, as they have come to realize that that success in business and other fields tends to be directly linked to how one’s brand is perceived. Any damage to the brand, real or perceived, will always impact on the manner in which outsiders react to it and to the promises that it makes.

The problem with Brand Zuma seems to be that it has too many spokespersons whose messages do not always seem well coordinated. They do not seem to be singing from the same hymn book. While the aims of all his defenders seem noble, their style of execution differs vastly. Some have sworn that they are prepared to sow mayhem and to kill for him while others have taken the time to explain the “real” Jacob Zuma to their interlocutors, taking the time to listen to all counter arguments while calmly explaining things that they consider to be misunderstood. The former types of spokespersons tend to either be condescending or they are simply untrained in communications, therefore annoying or ineffective in the end; thinking that they will win arguments by threats of force or other forms of intimidation. The second types have a studied manner about them, always mentally referring back to the core values and message in making their overall delivery. Carl Niehaus fits this second type of spokespersons.

Whether one likes Carl Niehaus or not he was, arguably, one of the ANC’s best spokespersons, while it lasted. Despite his well published faults – and perhaps because of them – he was, arguably, very engaging in his defense of the Zuma Brand. It could be argued that he succeeded for as long as he has doing the things that he is reported to have done precisely because he is a consummate communicator. He not only knew how to read his audience and to package both the content of his message and the tone of delivery for maximum effect. I doubt that he would have had the success that he did if he lacked the expertise that he clearly demonstrated to communicate with effect. Carl could probably look anyone in the eye, tell them that they had three ears instead of two and still manage to get that person to rush to the nearest bathroom to verify in the mirror. I had the fortune of being invited to welcome and introduce him to a group of European business people and diplomats exactly three days before his shit hit the fans. The occasion was a business breakfast organized by the French South Africa Chamber of Commerce & Industries. He calmly, confidently, stood up in front of an audience that seemed skeptical in the beginning and spoke at length about ANC history, policies, achievements and plans, even eloquently addressing issues related to the charges against Mr. Jacob Zuma, now dropped. He expertly handled some unfriendly sounding questions and turned a few unconvinced, unsmiling, participants into what seemed like friendlier ones, leaving them with satisfied smiles on their faces at the end of his address and a rather testing Q&A session.

In a piece called “The Brand called YOU”, Tom Peters argues that “Power is largely a matter of perception. If you want people to see you as a powerful brand, act like a credible leader”. Personal brands, no doubt, are harder to manage precisely because the brand itself is a dynamic human being that can, by itself, “go off message”. This is even harder when the brand in question is that of a powerful public/political figure whose every word and action is reported upon and subjected to all sorts of scrutiny and interpretation. To survive all the negative scrutiny that it has attracted, some of it probably deserved, Brand Zuma has to be managed in a manner that takes into consideration the ever changing political brand consumption patterns of South Africans. And whether the spokespersons like it or not, a one message one package approach will never work for the diverse South African electorate. The same message packaged for the electorate in Kwa-Zulu Natal might not have the same desired effect in the Western Cape – or vice versa – because the dynamics are totally different. I have heard people argue that “this is Africa and not America, we shall do it the African way whether they like it or not”. What such people fail to take into account is that they, not the electorate, have something to sell, in this case Brand Zuma. In packaging the message, issues that are important to the intended audience have to be seriously taken into consideration and respected. “Respected” does not necessarily mean “accepted” and repackaging the message does not mean changing its core meaning; but no message will be well received if the intended audience is not convinced that its own fears are being taken seriously.

I am not convinced that Jacob Zuma is the monster that so many amongst us seem desperate to make the rest of us believe he is.

Whichever way one chooses to relate to Brand Zuma, it seems like each one of us has to choose between spending the next five years – for a miracle must happen for Brand Zuma not to head Brand South Africa – losing more tomorrows because of yesterday or contributing to all efforts to ensure that the next government is more accountable to the people of South Africa, irrespective of their political persuasions and, ultimately, to the rule of law.

Solly MOENG
Cape Town
Solly MOENG is a Cape Town based Brand Management Consultant and Social commentator.

The Ivory Coast is the latest in a series of developments on the African continent that contribute to the constant running down of Brand Africa. Each time that Brand Africa tries to raise its head and look up in pride, something happens, within Africa by Africans, to mow it down to size, ensuring that it remains amongst the least respected geographic brand in the universe. Following the ongoing Zimbabwean situation, Kenya, the Sudan, Egypt, the ongoing South African process to limit freedom of expression and access to information through the widely condemned Protection of Information Bill, this continent simply refuses to be saved, one is tempted to think.

There are also acts of violence and intended violence against people who are gay and lesbian, with some even threatening to follow closeted gay and lesbian Africans right into their “closets” and expose them, often with more violence; as well as the silly belief in some countries that kidnapping, murdering and dismembering people who live with albinism will bring all forms of luck. Here, closer to home, we still have morons who claim to believe that they can rape a lesbian woman in order to make her straight, or a young baby in order to cleans themselves of HIV/AIDS. Let’s not even mention the practice of kidnapping young girls, prevalent in parts of the Eastern Cape, to force them into marriage. These strange and archaic beliefs and practices are even more worrisome when perpetrated and encouraged by those in positions of power. Kenyan Raila Odinga and Zimbabwean Robert Mugabe are examples of such people. There is still a dearth of strong and credible leadership voices to condemn bad things that happen in Africa whenever these happen. No one is there to lead from the front. Had they still been active in public life, I have no doubt that Madiba and Tutu would not have kept quiet in the face of all this. But even then, we’d need many more voices in order for the condemnation to have any effect.

Too many of the efforts by the political leadership in Africa to respond to electoral fraud seem only aimed at saving face, ensuring that despots remain in power despite clear signals from their electorates and whatever exists of civil society that they want change. I can bet that Mbeki’s latest interventions in the Ivory Coast will end up – and I hope to be wrong here – with another “African solution for an African problem”, with the loser, Laurent Gbagbo, ending up in some power-sharing arrangement despite his clear disdain for open democratic processes.

We, Africans, tend to be forever enslaved by dreams of yesterday. If it is not a yesterday dating back to pre-colonial times, when things, apparently, used to be all peaceful and perfect, it is to a more recent yesterday during the fight for the end of colonialism and apartheid. Friendships that were formed during these periods continue to stand in the path of progress in many ways and to make it hard for African leaders to accept that the world has changed, values have evolved and ordinary Africans have progressively become aware that they too have rights that must be protected and respected; they cannot forever be shepherded like sheep at the beck and call of political and traditional leaders.

African political and business leadership need to wake-up and realise that for Brand Africa to attract more Foreign Direct Investments and other forms of lucrative partnerships, it has to stand up and shine. It should stand proudly amongst other geographic brands and speak of an Africa that lives in the present century, standing side-by side and competing with the best in this world a world where to be African does not mean defending the indefensible.

What associations do we want the rest of the world to make with Brand Africa and, importantly, what associations do we reject?