Springbok World Cup victory is what the late Makhenkesi Stofile envisioned

In a compelling analysis of identity and nationhood in post-apartheid South Africa published shortly after the country's hosting of the 2010 Fifa World Cup, South African sociologist Neville Alexander provocatively posed the question whether the country’s recent political trajectories suggest “a new historical community” is being fashioned, one in which the racial divisions of the apartheid past have been fully transcended, the liberation ideals of class and other equalities have been attained, and a cohesive national South African identity prevails.

Certainly the 2010 Fifa World Cup appeared to be the occasion for that at the time: media images beamed across the world showed South Africans from all racial, ethnic and class backgrounds collectively and proudly displaying the national flag, blowing the ubiquitous vuvuzela and stoically supporting the national team, Bafana Bafana.

Media portrayals reinforced government rhetoric that underlined the “cosmetic” unity and modernity of post-apartheid South Africa. From the perspective of the government, certainly, the World Cup represented the pinnacle of the achievements of the “Rainbow Nation” after 1994.

These “positive” assessments of the nation-building momentum of the large sports tournament were countered by critical appraisals from several public figures and intellectuals who questioned the longevity and authenticity of the feel-good sentiment evoked by the event.

Alexander himself doubted the real utility of the event for a society still marked by racial conflict and deepening economic inequalities, which for him nullified any progress towards the “creative and constructive future” envisioned in the early post-apartheid years.

Others lamented elaborate spending on a “grand spectacle” which “is not a metaphor for the historical triumph over adversity, of South Africa’s (or Africa’s) renaissance” or of a positive “developmental legacy”. It was rather a hugely costly and ultimately ephemeral exercise in “myth-making”. Yet others saw in the triumphalist popular celebrations and euphoria during the tournament “a false nationhood” with little content or political mainstay.

Ultimately the socioeconomic or sociocultural legacies of the Fifa World Cup, the debates about what impacts the tournament will have on the political consciousness of South Africans are significant because they reflect long-standing intellectual problematic debates on how to grasp the dynamics between sports, politics, and identity in the country and how to understand the role sport has historically played in societal processes.

Many who are old enough would know among the efforts towards building egalitarian and social cohesion was the late Makhenkesi Stofile’s singular boycott of the All Blacks game versus the Springboks because that team wasn’t reflective of South African demographic features. He succeeded and the game was not played.

Bra Stof's other significant contribution post-1994 was when, with his usual calmness and political composure, he emphatically told the then portfolio committee on sports, in what I would call “polite mechanical easing of the sociologist's [Alexander's] concerns” of the country’s balance of forces at the time.

Reflecting on his annual report, he said “the time for an assessment of the road travelled and also to provide direction for the way forward has arrived”.

He noted sport plays an integral role in the balance of forces in any country. He went further to say “despite sport competing for public resources with many other worthy causes, his department would not tire in its attempts to persuade the cabinet to maximise access, to pursue rural sports development, build sports infrastructure, enhance drug-free sports, promote school sports and excellence at all levels of participation”.

He told MPs his department was encouraged that the success of the school mass participation programme had increased participation in sports as well as developed sports champions from grassroots level. At the same time, the department was mindful that many children were organically excluded from participating in elite sport. For that reason, stakeholders were called to work together to intensify the development of sport and to deliver support to pupils who displayed talent. This was a firm foundation for many black South African athletes.

Articulating the position of the ANC on sports from the watershed 2007 Polokwane conference, he was concerned about the commercialisation of sports, and highlighted that it needed to be regulated. I cannot say he or the ANC which deployed him at that time forestalled that one day the Springboks would be hosted by a private citizen in a private property in Stellenbosch with national symbols that are by extension national assets.

Bra Stof, however, vociferously bemoaned the privatisation, monopolisation and commercialisation of sport as far back as 2008. He was futuristically doing this to potentially protect those who are known to be pliable on capture, and also extrapolating Alexander’s discomfort about the state of “concrete social cohesion” in South Africa.

Both Stofile and Alexander could smell the insatiable desire from some within the ANC who are prepared and over-committed in pleasing the historical oppressors at the expense of long term interests of the “natives”. His epistemological thread was that rugby belongs to the South African government, not private hands.

In his account, a white athlete was once funded seven times more than a black athlete. You ask yourself, what did the white protagonists of sport do to change that towards black athletes? The question I am raising here is: Do we trust our historical oppressors about our total liberation through sport?

When presenting his budget, he told parliament, quoting from Albert Luthuli, that “the Black Ox” can no longer eat in isolation from others. He was firmly connoted that due to the demographic features of the country, it is not sickness to have as many Siya Kolisis as possible inside the field of play, hence the vigorous advocation of both mass participation and school sports programmes at that time because these were complementary dimensions in giving birth to what we are celebrating today.

The Springboks' recent victories and rise to the top of the sport are traceable to his firm foundation, especially for black children.

Many, without laying any foundation or doing anything tangible for the development of sport for black children, would predictably and unduly claim certain credits today on the strength of other people’s long term visions and hard work.

This call goes beyond sports. Today’s efforts must address Alexander’s discomfort on the state of today’s fragile social cohesion, with all its inherent problems. Eighty minutes of patriotism in France on the field of play and anything that comes with it doesn’t necessarily grow food to kill poverty, doesn’t ease petrol price hikes, doesn’t bring back the land and substantially equalise society — otherwise we would have been glued by the 1995 Rugby World Cup and 2010 Fifa World Cup in this country.

Maybe it is time for the minister of sport to share with the nation his barometer on how we have fared so far. Are we cohesively winning with the “uniting” force of sport as an instrument from 1995 to date? This is to check if we are managing the nation judiciously, as the legendary African scholar John Henrik Clark demands of all Africans.

• Mphumzi Mdekazi is an ANC member from Boland region (AB Xuma branch) in the Western Cape. He writes in his personal capacity.