Clicks fallout may have far-reaching ramifications

They saw a huge opportunity in the Clicks hair advert row – and they successfully capitalised on that opportunity (although capitalised is probably not a word these Gucci socialists would like to use…).

In the nearly six months that South Africa’s party politics has been congealing under the impact of Covid-19, the EFF has been unnaturally quiet, lacking in excuses to fan the flames of real, or imagined, outrage. In reality, the organisation has been losing considerable ground among its core constituency, the poor people of South Africa.

Movements pushing xenophobic narratives – with themes like “South Africa for South Africans” – have elbowed the EFF out of the populist political limelight and even attacked Julius Malema and his lieutenants for being “soft” on the so-called takeover of South Africa by foreigners.

And at the weekend funeral of Nathaniel Julies, the 16-year-old allegedly shot by police in Eldorado Park, EFF “ground forces” angered many in the community when they showed up to attempt to ride on the coattails of common grief. The Clicks row was manna from heaven for the EFF. A rebel, after all, is nothing without a cause.

That is not to say, however, that the incident was insignificant, or that it did not cause very real outrage. In this day and age – of intense and long overdue coverage of black suffering and oppression around the world – it is scarcely believable that the companies behind the ad, Unilever and its TRESemme hair care brand, as well as the social media team which put it on the Clicks website, should not have noticed the potential for causing offence.

This is an issue that goes well beyond hair and hair care products. It speaks to the real discounting of the black experience which happens daily in the advertising and marketing sectors. It is made even worse by those involved not realising the level of offence and hurt they are generating.

Yet, Malema’s call to his followers to “attack” Clicks stores – and the violent trashing and petrol-bombing which followed – cannot be condoned in any civilised society Despite the EFF’s by now well-used “plausible deniability” tactic – we didn’t instruct people to do these things – and its belief in its “right to protest”, forcing a business to close is anything but peaceful and is intimidation, plain and simple.

That is why it is worrying that the courts rejected a last-minute attempt by Clicks to get an interdict against the EFF … despite the inflammatory language used by Malema and the organisation’s previous acts of vandalism against the H&M chain of shops.

The lawlessness which occurred yesterday is proof that Clicks was correct in trying to get the law to protect it. But its failure to do so could have repercussions far beyond this one protest.

A judgment which denies protection to a company, its employees and its property in the face of a clear and present danger is disturbing in what it implies about the security of property – and investments – in present-day South Africa. At a time when this country needs the confidence of investors, both local and foreign, this latest EFF publicity stunt could have far-reaching negative ramifications for our attempts to climb out of the pit of Covid-19 economic despair

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.