Does the boycott strategy work in African countries?

Many public officials have positively demonstrated how devolution works.

We are beginning to see development in areas that have historically been forgotten, and this glimmer of hope is supposed to make us proud of the work of county governments.

However, development does not just show that devolution is working, it shows that access to resources was an abysmal problem — and in turn our deep buttressed issues with tribalism.

We are quite aware that counties surrounding the city tend to have better roads development, schools or hospitals compared to those that are far away from the capital city.

ETHNICITY

These very locations are grouped by ethnicity, that is why it is no surprise sometimes imbalanced access to resources is pointed out. But why would we think that a few years of devolution can solve decades of marginalisation?

In many battles in history, it is not so much the soldiers but the general who determines whether a battle will be won or lost.

Sun Tzu goes into detail in the Art of War of understanding terrain, and reading your enemy.

Just like battles with strategy, boycotts similar to the one called by the National Super Alliance are a strategy. But do they work?

One of the most successful boycotts was in 1955 in the United States when Rosa Park refused to move from her seat. Some people say that she was too tired and refused to sit at the back where people of colour were sectioned off to sit in transportation systems.

However, some do not recognise she was secretary to the Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People in the Montgomery Alabama Chapter.

BOYCOTTS

The chapter had been practising different action steps and they strategically selected Rosa. And it worked. People were outraged – Martin Luther King became more vocal about segregation, asking people of colour not to use public transport but walk or carpool and the economic effects were felt.

This, in turn, led to legislation changes that public transport would be integrated. That was a major success for boycotts.

However, boycotts can also have an opposite effect. In 2012, the CEO of renowned food chain Chick-fil-A made a statement opposing same-sex marriage.

Activists called for people to boycott the restaurant but supporters came out in their defence and supported the franchise by having a boycott – buying more of the company’s products.
When companies are boycotted, often times the CEOs do not like the negative attention received.

Some come out and apologise when at fault (BP oil spill that occurred in the Gulf in 2010, the largest spill to date). Businesses are afraid of having a bad image and making losses, and eventually job cuts.

But do these strategies work in Africa? South Africa in the 80s with disinvestment is one movement that demonstrated world-wide support from people and celebrities.

SOUTH AFRICA

While South Africa was practising apartheid, people showed support for South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela by boycotting white South African owned industries.

Even though people diverted from supporting certain businesses, research demonstrates that it did not make a drastic impact economically.

There was plenty of media attention and focus on the country because celebrities, including Bob Marley, held concerts in support of freedom for South Africa. Did that attention on the country force policy makers to change laws?

In fact, what boycotts do, is receive attention. Media will cover boycotts and this allows for the agenda to be fronted.

However, there are multifaceted factors that must come to play for the boycott to have an effect.

That includes, people being able to identify with the situation. Also, having policy makers in place by putting pressure on them, and also very key is the timing, it has to be right.

The writer is Executive Director, Siasa Place