While US companies bend the knee to Trump's toxic politics, SA Inc. remains resilient

In the last few days Disney has found itself at the centre of US politics, after it decided to remove a comedian from the line-up of its television network ABC. It comes after other companies there have also had to make decisions about political issues that they would rather avoid. So far, very few South African companies have found themselves in the same position as a result of politics, but divisions around race can still embroil them in disputes.

Last week Disney took the decision to remove Jimmy Kimmel from its broadcast schedule on its network ABC, following comments he made about how US President Donald Trump and others were using the assassination of Charlie Kirk for political purposes.

Read more: Trump applauds Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension and seeks to punish critical broadcasters

To be clear, Kimmel did not denigrate, make light of or show approval for an act of violence. Rather he, quite correctly, pointed out that Trump and others were making political hay out of the killing.

Following comments by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (who was appointed by Trump) and a decision by an owner of TV affiliates on the ABC network to not carry his show, Disney took Kimmel off air.

That led to a large number of subscribers to Disney’s other products, including its streaming app, cancelling their subscriptions in protest.

Disney then reversed its earlier decision, reinstating Kimmel.

This is just one example of how US corporations have been dragged into their country's toxic politics. 

This is partly because US politicians are doing this deliberately. They take aim at certain companies and use them to virtue-signal to their supporters.

In some cases, however, US companies can be dramatically affected by decisions made by the Trump administration that are even more serious.

Earlier Trump claimed that pregnant women should not take a popular drug, Tylenol, because he wrongly believes that paracetamol can affect unborn babies.

Now manufacturers of this drug are having to counter this message, which must put them in an impossible position. 

At the same time, as The Economist has pointed out, there is more and more evidence that Americans are now beginning to live in two separate economies.

They are listening to different artists, sleeping on different beds and in some cases, even drinking different coffee.

In the US this is also defined geographically. It is one of the most startling features of US politics that the schism of that country’s civil war still has such expression in its politics now.

But in essence, Disney was too scared to take on the president and the head of the FCC that he had appointed. Despite the fact that they were right on the law, they literally bent the knee to Trump.

Things are very different here.

In our recent past, perhaps the biggest threat to the interests of business was the State Capture era of Jacob Zuma’s presidency.

While some companies were involved in corruption, many others actually appeared to stand up against it.

It is astonishing now to remember that the CEOs of some of our biggest companies joined protests against the Zuma administration.

The reason they could do this is that, despite taking on the President, they knew that their customers were with them. There was a very small chance they would lose business as a result of doing that.

And for firms that serve primarily the middle classes, they may also have thought that if they were not seen to stand up to Zuma they might, in fact, even have lost business.

In the US the political situation is now so politically tribal that this is not the case. Instead companies that want customers from all parts of that society are finding that it could soon be impossible.

Even petrol stations could find themselves being avoided by one group just because they sell Tylenol, or because they don’t.

It is also worth noting that our society has a strength that the US currently lacks.

There, the president can make appointments that will change the direction of regulators such as the FCC and the courts.

While our elected officials have much power over these positions, for the moment, the rule of law is much stronger. Our institutions are more insulated from this kind of political interference than those in the US. 

That said, there have been some instances where a politician here has tried to mount a campaign against a particular business.

Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters mounted a campaign against Vodacom that might have been frightening to the company at the time, but did not appear to lose them any business.

What is much more threatening for companies here are issues involving race.

In 2017 Spur found itself in the middle of such a dispute despite doing what must have been the right thing.

A white customer was filmed in a Spur in a confrontation with a black woman. Spur then banned him from all of its outlets. That led to a group organising a boycott against Spur among certain communities.

As Rebecca Davis pointed out at the time, this had a very real financial impact on Spur and some of its outlets.

Considering that racialised inequality is still the most defining feature of our society, it is likely that from time to time some companies will find themselves in the middle of a dispute along these lines.

While some will involve disputes concerning customers, others will involve disputes in the workplace.

Professor William Gumede has even provided some thoughts on how companies can avoid these in the future.

But race is not the only dividing line in our society.

In places such as Norwood, Houghton and Orange Grove in Joburg, a gym chain like Virgin Active will have customers who strongly support Palestinians in Gaza and customers who support Israel.

While the manager of a gym branch may have qualifications in management, exercise and health, spare a thought for those who have to deal with disputes about T-shirts referring to “From the River to the Sea” or “IDF” (Israeli Defence Force).

For the moment then, companies here appear to have a lot more freedom of action than they do in the US.

One of the main reasons for this is that their biggest customers, those with the most money, are centralised in our much smaller middle classes. While people in this sector of our society are obviously divided along elements of their identities (often involving race and ethnicity), they are united in their economic interests.

Should they decide their political interests are very different from their economic interests this could change.

And, if a political movement or leader is ever able to dominate our politics, as Trump is currently in the US, then they could face more political threats.

But for the moment, that prospect seems very far away.

As a result, our companies have much more freedom of action than their counterparts in the US, despite having a customer base that is much more diverse. DM