Africa as a brand: struggle politics and the branding of history

The difference in cultural studies between a brand and a commodity is substantial. The commodity is a utilitarian object based on dialectic between use value and exchange value. Thus a pair of shoes and their value is based on their purpose, such as running, and the related market forces and systems required to deliver them to the consumer. A brand is merely a signifier attached to a commodity that bestows it with symbolic power over and above its use value. Say Nike shoes as opposed to Adidas shoes.

This is true even if the quality of a product attached to a brand is greater based on function or aesthetics as the additional value ‘added’ is not related to the cost of production. The brand is therefore an abstraction, based on perceived ‘significance’ of social signifiers that override any issues relating to production. Branding an object is therefore of utmost importance as it is what determines its value [price]. And so it goes for politics.

In Southern Africa the anti-Apartheid struggle was based on a popular drive for equality, representation and universal human rights. The political parties associated with the struggle brand themselves with ‘struggle credentials’ and the historical role or legacy assumes an identity over and beyond its actual role.

This is not to say any involvement by the various political parties was or is insubstantial, but that the claims to the future become based on a mythologised past laced with facts. The current and future identity becomes intertwined with the past collapsing history and legacy into a post-modern entity devoid of substance, yet full of presence.

In the market place of brands only one brand can claim any one idea through copywrite rules and laws and a similar process happens in politics. Ideas, standards and norms become branded by parties as marketing ploys to sway voters. While parties contest who holds the brand to the struggle credentials they do not do so according to market forces so the shoe comparison ends here. For example the ANC is able to exert control over the SABC due to their dominance, thus collapsing the distinction between party and state. They subvert the competition process through asymmetrical access to media, resources and as opinion leaders within communities. It’s no longer about free and fair competition, but of course Capitalism isn’t either, but that’s a separate issue for now.

The anti-apartheid struggle(s) has been co-opted for crude political gains over substantive issues that were raised during the struggles. Issues such as access to health care and poverty alleviation thus become entwined with party politics instead of human rights issues based on a universal drive for equality. The ideas enshrined in a notion of equality becomes intertwined with what the party can do to bring this about as opposed to what needs to be done. Functions and responsibility of the state become linked to the party therefore subverting development as a state level responsibility through the branding of buildings, schools and other projects.

The idea that there is only one struggle that was against apartheid denies some very real contributions by many other people, groups and nations (in both senses of the term for the more academic/pedantic). This struggle over history is being seen in the renaming of streets that favour ANC ‘comrades’ as well as lauding communist leaders from Latin America. Only one ‘brand’ is being deemed valid.

This totalising view of struggle history must be resisted and other struggles given attention. This branding is similar to the ‘war’ veteran’s discourse in Zimbabwe where struggle credentials forgive abuses of power and justify monstrous policies that destroy their own economy. It is also seen in the violent utterances and silent approval by ANC leadership of “kill for Zuma” statements coupled with talks of amnesty for illegal activity and a lack of accountability of current leaders through their claims being part of the struggle.

This form of historical revisionism can only lead South Africa away from democratic principles of equality, good governance and responsible leadership.