Defend Truth


That Clicks ad was shockingly tone-deaf, but EFF’s response tramples on our democracy


Dr Marius Oosthuizen is a scenario planner and writes in his own capacity.

That the Clicks hair advertisement made it through to publication is a shocking example of a business behaving in a tone-deaf manner. But the EFF’s anti-democratic response has shown that they act with impunity – that they consider themselves above the law.

Dear Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, and Minister of Arts and Culture, Nathi Mthethwa, please don’t fail our democracy.

As you know, Clicks this week juxtaposed an image of a black person’s hair labelled as “frizzy & dull” next to a picture of the hair of a white person labelled as “normal hair”. Whoever created the images, and placed them side by side, succeeded in creating a horrid message not explicitly stated but visually portrayed – that Caucasian hair is superior to African hair.

The creator of the image is either ignorant of the deep societal wounds relating to racial stereotypes that have been used to demean and dehumanise black people in our society, or is evidently racist and intentionally portrayed black people’s hair as inferior to that of white people.

We know from communication science that the intended message of the sender in an exchange is rarely matched by the understood meaning of the recipient. Effective communication requires a shared frame of reference or mutual context. In this case, it may very well be that the creator believes the implicit portrayal of their message and unwittingly showed the world what they really think about black people.

That the Clicks advertisement made it through to publication is a shocking example of a business behaving in a tone-deaf manner, given the discursive backdrop of our context. It is completely unacceptable. Clicks has received widespread criticism and has apologised for the harm caused. The incident raises questions about the capacity of business institutions to conscientiously reflect on their engagement with society. 

Importantly, this unfortunate incident represents an opportunity for national reflection and education.

How is it possible that a successful consumer retailer can behave with such insensitivity? Where are the checks and balances that prevent such hurtful or harmful messaging from reaching publication? There are lessons here for businesses operating in an age where social norms are shifting, hopefully towards a more equitable and respectful treatment of all social groups. 

I am sure the case study about Clicks will be taught in business schools, alongside that of H&M, in months to come, to help future business leaders better manage their businesses.

But that is not the end of the story.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) led by Julius Malema have successfully seized the day to promote their own solution to racism in our society and in the domain of business.

Their solution is to protest – to occupy the public and private spaces where Clicks stores operate, and to demand that the stores close. Their approach is to declare “war” on the retail chain and force them, with violence if necessary, to close their doors for a period of time.

The EFF, a registered political party in South Africa complete with parliamentarians and city council members, have opted to take the fight to Clicks, and if necessary, to escalate the matter until someone dies. Julius Malema won’t say on Twitter who should die, only that death would be justifiable.

This chosen course of action has implications for our democracy.

The EFF has not opted to lay charges of hate speech against the company or its office bearers. They have not opted to call for a national dialogue about the need for equal dignity and mutual respect for all races. They have not called for the Human Rights Commission, or the Constitutional Court, or the National Assembly, or SA Police Service to investigate, legislate or punish the wrongdoers. Instead, they have taken to the malls to force Clicks to close, through intimidation and force.

In the process they have violated the rights of workers at Clicks to undertake their daily tasks and earn a living. They have violated the rights of the owners of Clicks, including the institutional owners such as pension funds and labour unions, to undertake commercial activities freely. They have violated the freedom of the shoppers who rely on Clicks for medicine, or who simply want to use their constitutional rights to go about their business as they wish.

What the EFF have shown is that they can act with impunity irrespective of South Africa’s national sovereignty. They show that they consider themselves to be above the law of the land, and do not require recourse to the courts, or to due process to measure the crime and meet the punishment. They believe their right to dignity is supreme, even greater than the right to life.

The EFF have done what the apartheid regime had perfected – decided on behalf of all other South Africans what the standard of societal order will be, including, if they so choose, that it must be disorder, the destruction of property and the intimidation of bystanders caught in the crosshairs. Two wrongs do not constitute a right.

We need to decide, dear ministers, if we are going to be a country of laws or of men. The two are not compatible. Africa is today diseased with strongmen who have dictated to their people how they should or should not live, including oppressing women as the EFF did today by refusing an elderly woman entry to medicine dispensaries. In a country with deep unemployment and social inequity, shutting down businesses in this way will only worsen our current and future economic prospects.

So dear ministers, I implore you to do your job.

If South Africa’s public culture requires enhancement in the area of inter-racial respect, come up with a plan of action. If our businesses require higher levels of sensitivity to the lived experience, the historic traumas and inequities that have plagued some in our society, come up with a solution.

Equally importantly, if a segment of our society decides to act with impunity by curtailing our freedoms and thereby threaten the democratic fabric of our society, dispense with your obligation to represent the state.

The political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in delineating the social contract in society, explained that “each of us puts his person… under the supreme direction of the general will… [the Sovereign state]” and “each member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation”. Also, that “[government is] an intermediate body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual correspondence”. Our willingness as citizens to abide by the law and to engage one another within its processes is the foundation of democracy.

We are not living in a banana republic run by a dictator.

That rule must apply to the racists, to businesspeople, and to the populists such as the EFF.

If they break the law, arrest them. If they destroy property, charge them. If they endanger lives, lock them away in the public interest, as you have recently begun doing with racists.

If you fail to do your job, dear ministers, I assure you there will come a day when the public will no longer believe in the authority of the SAPS, or in the legitimacy of your ministries, or in the central authority under which you expect us to live in harmony. 

Failure to uphold the rule of law is a failure to sustain our democratic order. Such a failure will only defer our dreams of an economic recovery and of the social justice we hope will follow. DM

Marius Oosthuizen is a scenario planner and writes in his own capacity. 


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • William Stucke says:

    “dispense with your obligation to represent the state” (emphasis added, if it works in this commenting engine)
    No, please don’t _dispense with_, i.e. give it away. Instead, please “dispense your obligation to represent the state” i.e. do your stuff in representing the State.
    What a difference a word makes!

  • Manie Krause says:

    What a lot of hogwash. Anyone that read the message that a black persons hair is inferior to a white persons hair or even worse, that a black person is inferior to a white person from the add need some serious counselling I think. The reality that some hair styles and some hair colors are more desirable than others (not necessarily but probably in the mind of the seller in this case, but definitely in the mind of the buying public) is undeniable and subject to ever changing trends.

  • Glyn Morgan says:

    Let us see just what the government is going (or not going) to do about the EFF right-wing fascism.

  • Lesley Young says:

    Manie is right. I might add that the original ad picture showed a black head in profile with the words ” dry or damaged hair. That now appears as a full face normal black picture with undamaged hair. I have permed my hair for 50 years to allow it to have some shape. It had to be heavily conditioned every wash otherwise it looked and felt like straw. It was chemically damaged in the perming process. I am white, with very fine, dead straight hair which will not hold a shape even with heavy Polyfilla like gel for more than a couple of hours! But now I’m old, I no longer perm it and have it cut very short so it doesn’t hang in my eyes. The original picture showed hair, obviously permed or coloured to straighten it, the opposite of me, and anybody would understand what the advert was referring to. No mention of ‘ugly. In the 1970s I had mine permed into an ‘Afro’ for years, it was great although I had to sit in a sauna with the conditioner to get the shine back.

  • Wilhelm van Rooyen says:

    The EFF is being totally opportunistic in this instance. Their actions are not about protecting dignity, it is all about taking center stage and focussing attention on the EFF. But how blind were the people at Clicks to not have seen this fallout coming?

  • Trevor Pope says:

    With all the serious problems in SA, yet again we dive down another rabbit hole into the world of EFF race-based issue politics over a shampoo advert. And our disfunctional institutions are unable to respond as Marius points out. It’s quite sad actually.

  • Peter Worman says:

    Well written opinion piece and spot on in the final analysis. I do sometimes think that the EFF is the alter ego of the ANC as they seem to act with impunity and make statements like “we don’t need permission to protest” and the SAPS appear to believe this as well. And I never hear the ANC sanctioning them either. How many times have we heard about planned marches by other organizations being thwarted because due permission hasn’t been obtained? No such problem for the EFF. It does seem as if their sole purpose is to riot and cause mayhem at any real or perceived act of racism and to rehash the tired old socialist rhetoric that has been proved over and over to be unworkable. I don’t recall them suggesting anything that would bring about positive change that would benefit all South Africans. I think fascist would be an appropriate word to describe their organization.

  • Bryan Shepstone says:

    Hear hear! Red Berets in SA = Brownshirts of Nazi Germany.

  • Basil Smith says:

    The people of RSA shouldn’t be surprised at the antics of the EFF in the malls and shops.
    They have observed how the boorish behaviour of their leadership in Parliament is able to disrupt with impunity and without apparent sanction. Click’s is simply their imitation of this in the public sphere.
    Today it’s Clicks & TREsemme, tomorrow it will be, Loi Constitutionnelle.

  • Gerrie Pretorius Pretorius says:

    I see that Checkers and P&P are withdrawing TREsemme products. What has the product got to do with the thuggery of the EFF?

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted