Why South African Companies Still Have More Freedom Than Their US Counterparts

Disney bends, Kimmel suspended, then reinstated

In the United States, politics has become so toxic that even household names like Disney have been forced into uncomfortable corners. Just last week, Disney briefly pulled Jimmy Kimmel from its ABC lineup after he called out President Donald Trump for exploiting the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk for political gain. Kimmel hadn’t condoned violence, he simply pointed out how tragedy was being spun for political mileage.

But Trump’s allies leaned on Disney. The Federal Communications Commission chair, handpicked by Trump, weighed in. Some ABC affiliates refused to carry Kimmel’s show. Under pressure, Disney cavedonly to reverse its decision when a wave of subscribers cancelled their streaming services in protest.

This moment captured a bigger truth: in the US, corporations are caught in the crossfire of culture wars they didn’t sign up for. Every statement, every product, every spokesperson risks becoming a political lightning rod.

A different reality in South Africa

Contrast that with South Africa. While politics has often been messyand in the Zuma years, downright corrosivecompanies here have managed to preserve a remarkable degree of independence.

During State Capture, CEOs of some of South Africa’s largest firms took the extraordinary step of openly opposing Jacob Zuma’s presidency. Far from being punished by consumers, many businesses found that their stance strengthened customer loyalty. Unlike Disney, they didn’t have to bend the knee.

Even when targeted directly, local firms rarely face the same existential threats. Julius Malema’s EFF once staged a campaign against Vodacom. It made headlines, but Vodacom carried on largely unscathed.

Race: the sharper dividing line

That’s not to say South African companies are insulated from all controversy. Race remains our society’s deepest fault line, and when businesses stumble into that terrain, the backlash can be fierce.

Spur learned this the hard way in 2017 when it banned a white man caught on camera verbally attacking a black woman in one of its restaurants. The move was ethically sound, but it triggered boycotts from certain communities, hurting Spur’s bottom line.

Other businesses face more subtle cultural landmines. A Virgin Active branch in Johannesburg could easily find itself mediating disputes between customers wearing “From the River to the Sea” shirts and others donning IDF slogans. In a country where international conflicts echo through local communities, even gym managers need diplomatic skills.

Why SA Inc. still holds the line

So why do South African companies seem less vulnerable to political weaponization than their American peers?

One reason is structural. Our middle class, though smaller and diverse in identity, is relatively united in economic interest. Unlike in the US, where consumers split into parallel economiesdifferent brands, different coffee shops, even different mattressesSouth Africans still share much of the same consumer space.

Another factor is institutional strength. While no stranger to political meddling, South Africa’s regulators and courts remain harder to bend than their US counterparts under Trump. That gives businesses a measure of certainty the US market currently lacks.

This balance isn’t guaranteed. If a future leader manages to dominate politics in the way Trump has in the US, corporate independence here could face similar strain. Likewise, as race and international conflicts continue to stir public emotions, companies may find themselves drawn into disputes they’d rather avoid.

For now, though, South African firms enjoy a rare freedom of action that their US counterparts can only envy. And in a world where every brand feels one tweet away from a boycott, that resilience is worth more than ever.

{Source: Daily Maverick}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com