One of the more prominent boycotts was against South Africa and apartheid. It lasted 35 years and even now, one can question whether it was effective at bringing change on the policy in 1994. To some extent, South Africa was not hobbled by the boycott. They made the change in large part because they chose to make it.
The Montgomery bus boycotts in the U.S. over Rosa Park being asked to move in a segregated bus was more effective and in 1956, the buses in this part of Alabama were integrated. Change happened quicker because of the effectiveness of the boycott and the inability of the bus company to operate with so many customers not using their service.
That is the rub of boycotts. If some people continue to do business with those being boycotted, the ability to change things diminishes. Case in point, sanctions and boycotts of Russia have not compelled them to change their ways on territorial expansion or rigging world games for their athletes. Too many have bought their oil or sold them weapons so that that the economic effect has been blunted.
This is not to say that there is no choice but to do carry on normally with organizations and countries. People make choices all the time. We just don't call it boycotts. For example, some people stop going to a store when they stop carrying the brand they like. It helps to tell a company why you are not seeing them anymore. If they stop carrying Sprite, let them know you won't be back till they do.
A boycott in Canada of Loblaw's for one month may or may not be effective if people don't know what all of the companies owned by the parent are. For example, if you don't go to Real Canadian Superstore but go to No Frills, you have failed. Some people have said straight out that while they are upset with Loblaw's, they are still cheaper than other options.
The big question is whether a boycott is to change behaviour or to just hurt sales numbers of an organization. If it is to change behaviour, it might work if everyone stays on message. In Canada, the boycott against Loblaw's has people advocating for taking things from stores which organizers do not want to associate with. If organizers meet with Loblaw's they need to focus on things like discounted items.
Loblaw's has gotten so big that a boycott will be less effective than more timely investigations of grocers and suppliers fixing prices as we saw with bread. It took the government 13 years to fine one company $50 million. That is painfully slow. They are investigating meat now but if we go on the same timetable, it is worth it for a company to carry on like there are no consequences. Think about that every time you buy chicken, beef and pork. A boycott does little because the price is the same across different companies by design. Only government regulations can get to the bottom of it because competition doesn't exist.
Palestinian supporters have tried a BDS campaign against Israel. It stands for boycott, divest and sanctions. Three countries have taken up the cause and a few others have broken relations with Israel in last few weeks. The 20 plus year campaign though pre-supposes that only Israel is to blame for what is happening and the answer is for Jews to leave the territory. It is couched in terms of de-colonization and that Jews have no right at all to the area. They are settlers. Things quickly dissolve into anti-Semitism. Any two state thinking is dismissed. Any thinking that Hamas Palestinian leaders might try something different than pushing Jews into he sea is not accepted.
Subsequently, after 20 years plus, Palestinian BDS campaigns have been largely unsuccessful. A boycott is not going to force Israel to do anything. And it deceives people into believing that no diplomacy is needed. All that has to happen is for Israel to be abandoned for everything to be right in the world. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict will only reach some sort of outcome through negotiation. It is unlikely either side will achieve total success militarily or through sanctions and boycotts.
Presently, the Israeli government believes it can defeat Hamas completely, That seems a tough nut. The most meaningful peace agreements they have come by historically has taken great effort, timing and negotiation. And Hamas should not take comfort in their strategy with protests at campuses in North America and elsewhere. Israel will still defend itself if attacked.
So to sum up, boycotts can work if the objective is to change behaviour and the demands are focused. But much of the time demands are unfocused and angry and least of all, sympathetic. Having said that, I will shop elsewhere for the month of May than Loblaw's if no other reason than I believe they and others can do better. However, I am also pushing the federal government to not allow any more mergers that would not help consumers. I especially want the to to use the regulatory authority they already have to stop uncompetitive practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment