Tata is angry. Corona crisis communication in South Africa is taking on a paternalistic shine.

When Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa, made a reappearance on national television last Sunday night (12 July 2020), his words and demeanour were far from his usual understanding calm. Instead of the compassionate ruler, South Africans were faced with a fed up patriarch, who gave a stern lecturing to his people. “I feel like I have been scolded and sent to bed”, was one user’s reaction on Facebook, while someone else noted on Twitter: “Tata is shouting at us tonight”, tata being the Xhosa word for father. And indeed, a large share of Tata Ramaphosa’s address was nothing short of a dressing-down.

Ramaphosa: “This is how the virus is spread – through carelessness and through recklessness”

The reason for the president’s anger: South Africans not adhering to lockdown and social distancing rules. Admitting that most of South Africans take the necessary actions to prevent the spread of the virus, the President’s disdain for those who do not was obvious both, in his choice of words as well as in his facial expressions. Calling lockdown offenders “careless” and “reckless”, he made it quite clear that South Africans are by no means blameless of the rapid spread of Covid-19: “There are some among us who ignore the regulations. […] They also act without any responsibility to respect and protect each other.” Organising and participating in drinking sprees, attending parties, weddings or unduly large funerals, and walking around crowded spaces without a facemask were among the actions that received the President’s contempt. “This may be a disease that is caused by a virus, but it is spread by human conduct and behaviour”, he stated.

And like a parent who knows that lecturing alone may not change a child’s unruly behaviour, Ramaphosa quickly followed words with deeds. He announced the re-tightened of regulations and a strengthening of their enforcement. The wearing of face masks was made mandatory, non-compliance can now lead to fines and even jail sentences. The nightly curfew was reinstated. And alcohol was once again banned from the shelves.

Grounded without grace period, and not even a warning to get stock

The latter measures are aimed less at limiting the spread of the virus, but at freeing up hospital beds that are occupied by a large influx of trauma patients as a result of the use or rather abuse of alcohol. The ban as such was not wholly unexpected. Even at the best of times, South Africa has a huge problem with binge drinking, drink driving and acts of violence and crime committed under the influence of alcohol. After lifting the first lockdown ban on alcohol in June, hospitals were suddenly swamped with trauma cases linked to alcohol. The health sector is already under severe strain. The call to put the ban back into place had been made for a while, by politicians as well as members of the medical profession.

So while the second round of prohibition was not wholly unexpected, the majority of people was still caught by surprise – especially as the ban was put in place “with immediate effect”. While online, people were still debating whether or not they would get a chance to restock their drink cupboards in the morning, the National Corona Command Council made a swift and rather unexpected move: The gazetting and public publication of the amended rules was done straightaway. Thus, they were formally legitimised and came indeed into force immediately. South Africans trusting that the wheels of bureaucracy would grind in their usual slow pace were taken aback.

A disappointed parent chastising a child rather than a statesman addressing a nation

Just like its contents, the tone of the President’s speech was also met with surprise and bewilderment. Lecturing in command style is not a new trait of South Africa’s Corona communication. However, previously it was ‘only’ the ministers who self-righteously harangued South Africans on the dos and don’ts of pandemic adequate behaviour. In contrast, Ramaphosa’s role had been that of a concerned but trusting father. His usually modus communicandi was to appeal to the good in his people and urge them kindly to do the right thing. But when the people did not listen, the president turned into frustration mode. “He sounds like such a disappointed parent and my heart is sore with him”, read one statement on Twitter. The South African Times commented: “Actions and consequences; it’s a basic tenet of parenting. We didn’t listen to Oom Cyril, and now we’re being grounded”. Oom is an Afrikaans term, meaning uncle, and is – like Tata – a respectful way of addressing a man, especially an older one.

In a way, Ramaphosa’s change of tone mirrors the changed attitudes of South Africans. In the course of the past weeks the initial support and compliance have turned into dissatisfaction and severe criticism, fuelled also by the negative economic impact of the lockdown. The government has been challenged in court numerous times and spends a considerable amount of time dealing with the lobbying efforts of basically each and every economic sector, most noteworthy the tobacco industry and the almighty taxi association. And in the meantime, infections continue to increase and hospitals are overwhelmed.

Confrontations do not create understanding – communication does

Understandable as the President’s frustration may be, from the point of view of communications, taking a tough stance might not be the best way to deal with the situation. The hard-headed manner in which the government is now addressing its people will most likely not lead to support and compliance. It is more likely to deepen the divide that already exists between the people and their political representatives.

Interestingly enough many South Africans express an understanding for the reintroduction of the alcohol ban. The pandemic is in full swing. South Africans are well aware that they or their loved ones could soon be in need of medical care. They are also aware that there are not enough hospital beds. So freeing capacities makes sense. Nevertheless, the way the ban was introduced is questioned by many. As is the fact that there is still such a dire shortage of hospital beds despite the previous hard lockdown, which was aimed specially at buying time to ready the health sector.

No clear message, no clear understanding: Basic rules of communication are not met

In the book of communications, there are three basic principles for overcoming resistance, generating acceptance and indeed for preparing the ground for joint actions: First, have a clear message. Second, be transparent when it comes to facts and data. Third, consult the people and get them involved. None of these basic principles is currently adhered to in South Africa’s Corona crisis communication. The apparent lack of will to openly engage with the public provokes a more sobering effect than any ban of alcohol ever could.

-----------------------------

Photo by Andre Hunter on Unsplash

Background Information:

South Africa initiated one of the world strictest lockdowns on 27 March 2020. The strict lockdown (level 5) lasted for five weeks. Its aim was to buy time for the health sector to prepare for a surge in infections. The surge arrived as restrictions were subsequently lifted. The infection rate is increasing rapidly. As of 14 July 2020, there are 297,796 confirmed cases and 4,172 deaths. The peak of the pandemic is expected for August/September.