| | by admin | | posted on 10th July 2025 in Power to Protest | | views 61 | |
During the 1980s and 1990s, campaigners urged the public to avoid two of Britain’s biggest banks for their role in propping up oppressive regimes — Lloyds in Chile and Barclays in apartheid South Africa.
In the years following the military coup in Chile in 1973, General Augusto Pinochet ruled the country with a brutal hand. Thousands were tortured, disappeared, or executed during his dictatorship. Despite widespread international condemnation, British bank Lloyds maintained a close financial relationship with the Chilean regime throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s.
Campaigners, including solidarity groups and Christian organisations, accused Lloyds of providing direct loans and financial services that enabled the military government to stabilise its economy and suppress internal dissent. These actions were seen not merely as passive transactions, but as active complicity in state repression. The slogan “Avoid Lloyds” appeared on leaflets, posters, and placards, urging customers to close their accounts and shift their savings elsewhere.
Barclays Bank came under intense scrutiny for its involvement in South Africa, where it had been operating since the early twentieth century. In the 1980s, as international opposition to apartheid intensified, Barclays was accused of investing in and profiting from a system of racial segregation and economic injustice. At its height, Barclays was the largest bank operating in South Africa and held significant influence in the country’s financial infrastructure.
In Britain, students led one of the most visible and sustained campaigns against the bank. Universities across the country saw protests, sit-ins, and motions demanding institutions divest from Barclays. Demonstrators disrupted AGMs, occupied branches, and used creative protest tactics such as stamping “Boycott Barclays” slogans onto banknotes. The campaign gained support from churches, trade unions, and anti-apartheid groups, making it a central part of the broader UK response to apartheid.
Both Lloyds and Barclays bgan in the eighteenth-century world of Quaker banking. Early Friends, excluded from many professions because of their refusal to swear oaths or bear arms, often went into banking and commerce, building reputations for honesty, integrity, and trust. These values were not only personal but embedded in the structures and practices of the businesses they helped found.
By the late twentieth century, no longer owned by Quakers, many campaigners believed these banks had strayed far from their original ethical foundations. Financing dictatorship in Chile or profiting from apartheid in South Africa was seen as a betrayal not just of public trust but of the principles that once defined them. The contrast between the banks’ Quaker beginnings and their modern conduct was frequently highlighted in protest materials, adding a historical and moral weight to the campaigns.
Both the 'Avoid Lloyds' and 'Boycott Barclays' campaigns used moral arguments to challenge the neutrality of finance. They highlighted the power of public pressure and consumer choice as tools for international solidarity. The campaigns framed the issue clearly: banking was not politically neutral, and continued association with oppressive regimes was a matter of conscience.
The visibility of these campaigns helped shift public perception and increased awareness of how financial institutions could sustain injustice. For a time, Barclays became a byword for corporate complicity in apartheid. Although it did not immediately withdraw, the pressure contributed to the bank eventually selling its South African operations in 1986. Lloyds, facing less public outcry but mounting criticism, also began distancing itself from Chile by the end of the decade.
The success of these boycotts helped lay the groundwork for modern ethical banking and corporate accountability campaigns. They demonstrated that activism directed at banks could lead to real policy changes and public awareness. They also forced a conversation about responsibility — not just of governments, but of the institutions that enable them.
Though both banks have since rebranded and moved on from those associations, the campaigns remain a powerful example of grassroots action against economic injustice. They serve as a reminder that where money goes, ethics must follow — and that the decisions of everyday customers can echo far beyond the high street.