In 1885 at the Congress of Berlin King Leopold II of Belgium
acquired ownership of the lands of the Congo, making it his private property
and naming the newly acquired territory, the Congo Free State.
And he proceeded to economically exploit the natural wealth
of the country for his own personal enrichment.
And the name became synonymous with imperial exploitation,
tyranny and violence.
It is estimated that in the two decades it was owned by the
King, as his own personal fiefdom, the population of the territory halved.
In 1908 the land was formally annexed by Belgium and the
Congo Free State became the Belgium Congo.
But the people running the country remained unchanged and
opening up and exploiting the natural resources of the country for personal
gain remained their main aim.
No political activity was allowed and little attempt was
made to develop institutions of democracy, education and welfare.
Not much had really changed.
In 1960 it achieved independence. And guess what, it changed
name yet again and became the Republic of the Congo.
But it rapidly became highly unstable, hugely violent and
its wealth remained concentrated in the hands of the few. The country was seen
as one of the most despotic and corrupt in Africa.In 1971 the ruling elite was overthrown by a new dictator and a new ruling elite and the country became Zaire as it bid to remove all colonial influences and to overthrow the past.
And although all foreign owned economic assets were nationalised, Zaire went on as before.
The new regime was characterised by
widespread cronyism, corruption and economic mismanagement. Violence, instability
and brutal despotism remained at its heart.
Not much had changed in a century
despite the name changes.
In 1997 Zaire became the Democratic
Republic of Congo.
And although attempts were made to instil
democracy the country remained unstable, violent and despotic.
Today it is still called the Democratic
Republic of Congo.
But it remains a country which although
extremely rich in natural resources, remains held back by political
instability, the lack of infrastructure and a culture of corruption.
Democracy remains weak. Health care woeful.
Education standards low.
And the poverty of its people, despite
its riches, endemic.
Which just goes to prove that name
change on its own changes nothing.
For unless a deep and meaningful programme of culture change is developed and applied to the DNA of a brand’s culture, as exemplified by the behaviours of its leadership and its people, nothing much will change.
And the brand, the business, the nation
will continue as it has always done.
It takes more than a name change to change the underlying
DNA of a brand.And that is the essential difference between a re-branding programme and a re-badging programme.
