Africa

The Proteas just finished off a historic victory over the Aussies in test cricket Down Under. Beyond the fact that any victory over Australia is worthy of celebration, especially on their home turf where they are fierce, South Africa won by accumulating the second-highest run total for a chasing team in the annals of test cricket.

How many international sporting programs would look at a season of nine wins and four losses as a disaster? One such situation is playing out in South Africa, where the Springboks are in England to play the hosts at Twickenham this weekend. From The Mail & Guardian, “The End of a Dismal Year“:

A disappointing Springbok season ends at Twickenham on Saturday. The world champions play their 13th Test of 2008 with a record that reads: won eight, lost four.

The addition of a fifth loss would make it into a fairly dismal year, while a ninth win would not necessarily change that perception, which is pretty much the definition of a no-win situation.

South Africans have high expectations of their big three international teams, rugby, soccer, and cricket.  But sometimes the burden of the expectations surrounding those teams is unreasonable, and even counterproductive. The folderol surrounding the Springboks might be just such a case.

There are those who say that there is no place for politics in sport, or for sport in politics, but such people are knaves or fools. Sports and politics have always been linked, and those who decry the politicization of sport tend to have their own political axes to grind. Opposing the global boycott of South African sport during the apartheid era, for example, was itself an insertion of politics into sport. The idea that somehow boycotting sport was political but that playing games against a pariah state’s segregated sports team– that allowing sport to go on amidst people’s clear opposition to a noxious racist regime — was not represents a form of intellectual chicanery that warrants little more than scorn.

Inevitably sport reflects the societies in which it is played. Not surprisingly, then, racial transformation in South African sport is and will continue to be a contentious issue as two fundamental sides face off: One arguing that issues of race and transformation have no place on the sports fields and one asserting that the days of protecting and privileging the white minority should be long over and that conscious efforts to transform the South African sporting scene are overdue.

My own take is that the most important progress will happen at the developmental level, where sport is about far more than “merit” and winning or losing. But at the highest level there still should be a conscious effort made to field competitive, world-class teams while still pushing for inclusiveness in sports that intentionally were exclusive for decades. All things being equal, in other words, give the edge to the person who would not have been allowed on the team in the bad old days.

This debate is all over the sports pages of South Africa these days, no matter how stubbornly some believe in building a wall between sport and the real world, as if these are different things rather than sports being a component of the real world. Thus race arouses controversy in questions over Springbok selection (present but also past, as if the two are separable in the context of South Africa),  the increasingly controversial composition of the Proteas, and among the chattering classes of the sports commentariat, who make arguments criticizing “short-sighted administrators who, 14 years into democracy, continue to confuse transformation with discrimination” as if fourteen years represents a long period of time and under the presupposition that the ongoing attempts at transformation represent prima facie cases of discrimination, the apparent belief being that whites are entitled to spots on the country’s national and professional teams unless black players can prove otherwise.

Transformation of sport in the country is not going to happen without both concerted effort and the ruffling of feathers of those who feel entitled to spots in the country’s sporting elite simply because they have always held those spots.  Cynical knee-jerk invocations of “discrimination” should not successfully prevent necessary changes from taking place. South African sport is strong enough to endure these necessary adjustments that will do nothing more than make the games South Africans play (and the society in which they play them) better.

Although the ICC One Day cricket World Championship does not carry with it the cache of a World Cup title, it still would represent a nice feather in the cap of the Proteas. The South Africans are within range of claiming that title if they can just muster up two more wins over Bangladesh. Given the recent crises within the sport, the One Day crown might salve at least a few wounds.

Meanwhile, fresh off of their more significant rugby world championship, South Africans hope to host the Rugby World Cup in 2015, twenty years after the Springboks’ epochal home triumph in 1995. That South Africa has successfully hosted the event before, the country’s status as a global rugby power, the tie-in with 1995, the fact that South Africa shares a time zone with European nation (which thus makes it appealing from a television perspective), and the 2010 FIFA World Cup being held in South Africa all would seem to point to reasons for optimism that the bid will succeed.

Finally, a new season of Super 14 rugby is well under way.

The sun will rise, the sun will set, and South African sport will exist in a perpetual case of turmoil. Or so it seems. Winning the Rugby World Cup last year does not seem to have provided a balm to SARU’s (usually self-inflicted) wounds and in many ways seems to have rubbed them raw. Even the hiring of the first black coach in Springbok history has not alleviated the racial pressures that threaten to tear apart South African rugby. And the national cricket team has been the target of finger pointing and accusatory words as the result of the Proteas’ racial composition. Race and sport are deeply intertwined in South Africa, and the country is going to have to continue to wrestle with these issues, which rarely have easy solutions even if some have facile answers.

In fact, the hiring of Peter De Villiers may simply have exposed some of the uglier politics in South African rugby’s seemingly atavistically racist culture. Jake White, who led Amabokoboko to the world championship last year, believes that the politics that always threaten to tear apart what should be a thriving rugby infrastructure may cost De Villiers his job sooner than anyone imagines. A  t almost the same time as White was making his ominous prediction, Sports Minister Makhenkesi Stofile had some strong words of his own, warning that the government will not sit idly by if it perceives that South Africa’s sporting community is rife with racism. 

South Africa will be dealing with the turmoil of transformation, racial and otherwise, for some time yet to come. And that transformation will not always be easy. Sport carries such symbolic and cultural resonance in South Africa that it should not come as a surprise that the national teams are a flashpoint for political issues. Romantics and fools might argue that politics has no place in sport and vice versa, but sports history, in South Africa and worldwide, have always played a political role. Sports sometimes lead societal debates, sometimes follow them, but are almost never exempt from them. Some might wish that sport existed in a hermetically sealed universe. It does not, and wishing for something different will not make it so.

Let’s forget, if at all possible, the power outages, political debates, Robert Mugabe’s destabilizing jackassery, and all of the other mundane grimness that afflicts South African public life these days. For the world of sport provides two of the saddest stories of all. The first is the fact that Bafana Bafana appears set to bow out of the African Nations Cup with barely a peep barring some sort of freak miracle involving St. Jude smiling upon their boots (and frowning upon some others). It seems like a long way from the rarefied air South African football seemed to occupy in the period from 1996 to 1998 or so.  If the possibility of a flameout from the country’s footballers isn’t enough to arouse paroxysms of frustration (and drinking) then the impending retirement of Protea Shaun Pollack will push most fans of South Africa’s sporting scene over the edge.

A number of stories caught my attention this weekend. Here are a few of them, with brief commentary as appropriate:

The Makana Football Association, which operated surreptitiously on Robben Island among the political prisoners has achieved recognition from FIFA, the sport’s governing body. A feature film, More Than Just a Game, starring Tsotsi’s Presley Chweneyagae, is to be released in South Africa in the next few weeks.

Thabo Mbeki recently has been stepping up his advocacy of a trilateral free trade area between South Africa, India, and Brazil. Mbeki believes that this trade bloc will give these leading nations in the developing world a stronger hand in trades with the World Trade Organization and will focus on addressing poverty and underdevelopment in the three countries and within the regional spheres that they dominate.

The Mail & Guardian’s “ZA @ Play” has an interview with Mark Gevisser, the respected observer of South African politics whose forthcoming book Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred is highly anticipated. The interview is fairly anodyne, truth be told, but the book should stand as a definitive early treatment of Thabo Mbeki’s life if it can avoid the pitfalls of polemicism and advocacy to which virtually all of the books on Mbeki up to now have succumbed. 

Finally, a bit of a controversy has enveloped one of my old stomping grounds, Rhodes University. Last year Anne Warmenhoven submitted a doctoral thesis to Rhodes’ psychology department, which approved the dissertation and granted Warmenhoven the PhD. Her topic is the late disgraced former Proteas captain Hansie Cronje. But the dissertation apparently is nowhere to be found, apparently because members of Cronje’s family only agreed to speak with Warmwnhoven under conditions of secrecy. Obviously this goes against every principle of academic freedom and openness, not to mention ideals of transparency that are supposed to be a hallmark of the New South Africa.

Just some quick updates on stories I have reported in recent days:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has heard the voices of conscience in his country and across the globe and he has announced the cancellation of the Aussie cricket team’s tour of Zimbabwe that was scheduled for September. Australia’s governing body for the sport, Cricket Australia, is seeking an alternative neutral venue to hold the matches, likely in South Africa. 

Meanwhile outside fury continues to fester in the wake of the announcement that Zimbabwe will lead the United Nations’ Commission on Sustainable Economic Development. What is most peculiar is that even as alarm over the crisis is clearly growing among African nations, it seems evident that the support for Zimbabwe represents growing dissatisfaction of the developing world toward the west. The sentiment and frustration is understandable; the means of expression is pretty much unjustifiable. 

Finally, Thabo Mbeki has recently made efforts to assuage a possibly shaky world, including the leadership of FIFA, the international governing body of soccer/football that South Africa is prepared successfully to stage the 2010 World Cup. Morocco, which was once seen as South Africa’s chief competition for the 2010 bid, has thrown its support behind Mbeki and the South African effort. 

There was a long span of time when the issue of the South African role in sport was arguably the single most contentious debate in the global sporting community and it was a discussion that came to transcend the voundaries of athletic competition to become a global concern. Sport reflected politics, sports intensified politics, sport revealed politics. From the Sharpeville Massacre in March 1960 South Africa fast became anathema, a skunk among nations, and within just a few years, South Africa was virtually isolated with the exception of a few rogue rugby tours that themselves provided tableaux for theaters of conflict.

 Suddenly Zimbabwe finds itself fighting off threats of a boycott. Zimbabwe-based Roman Catholic Archbishop and leading critic of Robert Mugabe Pius Ncube has spoken in support of Australia’s national cricket team’s proposed boycott of its scheduled tour in Zimbabwe.  Indeed, he hopes that the Aussies will boycott and that England, New Zealand and other prominent cricket-playing nations will follow suit. A number of Australian political officials have spoken up in recent weeks, calling for the Australian cricketers, once again crowned world champions in the latest World Cup, to cancel the scheduled September trip and instead to pay the $2 million (US) fine that would come from the International Cricket Council (ICC) rather than provide the propaganda boost that the tour would provide for Mugabe. Other Australian officials (and most in the Zim government, we can assume) argue that Australia has a responsibility to fulfill its tour obligations. Naturally the ICC responds with boilerplate cant. 

During the years of South Africa’s exile there were those who argued that sport must be kept free of politics. those arguments almost always came from South Africa and its supporters, or from those nations whose national teams (New Zealand rugby, for example) stood to benefit from playing South African teams, or from conservatives who were unwilling to distance themselves from South Africa’s apartheid politics. But the reality is that sport does not stand independent of politics, and like it or not, politics exist. Pretending that they do not is in and of itself a political statement, all the more feckless for being coached in apolitical terms.  Asserting that playing in Zimbabwe (or not so long ago in South Africa) is to take the apolitical role is to be both naive and self-serving. Australia should boycott the September test series. Isolate Zimbabwean sport.

I’m back from a week in England and am still absolutely buried with email and work and deadlines. But here are a lot of links on some of the crucial issues facing Africa and Africans:

The online news editor of The Economist is in Zimbabwe trying to get a feel for things there, to stay out of jail, and to report what he sees from a “Correspondent’s Diary”-cum-Blog called “Robert Mugabe, Man Or Monster?” Meanwhile, it probably should come as no surprise that Mugabe is “not losing sleep” over the prospect of western universities stripping him of honorary degrees they thrust upon him in a bygone era. I should think not.

Nigeria’s presidential election was a nightmare just as were the local and state elections that preceded it. As expected, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Governor of Katsina State, the winner of last Saturday’s presidential election. Equally predictably, international observers scoff at the credibility of the polls, the opposition parties continue to press for protests and resistance, and The New York Times similarly laments the recent farce, though it is tough to discern what real “democratic legacy” they find in Nigeria’s history. J. Peter Pham had an astute pre-election assessment in the World Defense Review (courtesy of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, for which I have been a fellow).

World Politics Watch shows how the April 11 terrorist bombings in Algiers fit into al Qaeda’s larger global plan. Of course the implication of the article is that the real concern is the potential for future attacks in Europe, which reveals a remarkable willingness to pass off African suffering as of secondary significance. Maybe someone should , say, the Somalians that their suffering only serves as a prelude to something more important. 

Closer to the putative focus of this blog (I’ve said all along that while my focus would be South Africa, I would try to place the country within its larger continental context) the Proteas advanced to the semi-final round of the cricket World Cup, but unfortunately barring some sort of miracle, the South Africans, who put up a pathetic 149 all out , their worst total ever in a World Cup and every bit as embarrassing as what they did to England last week, the Aussies are likely to reach the necessary 150 by somewhere around the 25th over. We should know soon enough. As I type this the Aussie juggernaut is at 27-1. South Africans should probably start to turn their attentions toward Amabokkobokko.

It doesn’t all have to be grim, though. Just imagine yourself isolated from it all, travelling along the Skeleton Coast, free of the cares of the world. There the bad news fades amidst the splendour of Africa.