In 1996 South Africa got an opportunity to host the Africa Cup of Nations for the first time. It was a rare opportunity because Bafana Bafana had failed to qualify for the competition and therefore getting in as a host nation was not to be missed.
Bafana Bafana had also missed an opportunity to go to the 1994 Fifa World Cup in the US, which left the nation disappointed.
However, when Bafana became host nation, soccer bosses did things differently as they wanted to prove to the rest of the continent that they can be counted among the best.
The late Clive Barker led the technical team from the bench and enjoyed the support of the nation. But there were people who worked with Barker behind the scenes. They were Jomo Sono and the late Phil Jones Setshedi.
Sono and Setshedi studied opponents and ensured that when Bafana faced them on the field, the team had all the intel it needed.
Some of the members of the technical team had faced each other on opposite benches before, but the occasion that the nation faced demanded that they should forget about their differences and focus on what South Africa needed.
They did the honourable thing and worked together to deliver the very first piece of silverware for a senior national team in the history of South African football.
Politicians could learn a lesson or two from the soccer coaches as, somehow, South Africa finds itself in a similar situation.
There is no gainsaying the fact that helping Bafana win is less complex than constituting government following an election where disparate parties failed to win the majority of votes. Yet there are lessons to transpose from soccer to politics.
Surely, with 30 years of democracy under their belt, the current crop of politicians can learn some lessons from the technical team that lead Bafana Bafana in 1996 and the leaders who paved a way for South Africa to cross over into a democratic dispensation
Granted, the challenge before us is unprecedented and there is no way the country can avoid it. The process is legislated — a government must be formed after elections. If no-one got an outright majority, political parties must find each other and form a government.
Life must go on. Politicians must put their egos and differences aside and find a way to work together. That is the strength of our democracy.
This may sound like too much to ask, however, as South African politicians are known to be driven by what they stand to gain as parties rather than what is at stake for the ordinary citizens.
On Monday the Public Servants Association of South Africa (PSA) released a statement urging that the gains made during the 30 years of democracy should not be reversed by a change in government. The trade union called on political parties to appreciate that negotiations, by their nature, require maturity and sacrifice.
“This is a process where parties will be expected to put the interest of the people of South Africa ahead of party-political interests. The PSA aspires for a government that will be transparent, fair and just. The union urges all parties to ensure that the outcome of the ongoing negotiations inspires in the public service and broader society,” the PSA said.
Even before May 29, there was a lot of commentary about the failure of coalition government at local level. The dismal failure was evident in Tshwane, Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. Political parties entered into government based on what they stood to gain as individuals and as parties. Residents were an afterthought.
At national level, the stakes are high. They involve international trade, currency, security and all sorts of implications for the taxpayers.
Decisions taken at that level have serious implications for everyone living in South Africa. But this does not mean that such decisions are best made by a single political party. The globe is littered with good examples of coalition governments or governments of national unity from which South Africans can learn.
The late former president Nelson Mandela once shocked us when he said that “we [the ANC] must be willing to work with the people we do not like”.
This was the secret of the transition from apartheid state into a democratic era.
Mandela had suffered at the hands of the apartheid government and so did many of his comrades. It would have been natural for him to refuse to sit in a boardroom and discuss the future of South Africa with the men who called him a terrorist. Somehow he was able to look beyond the exercise of negotiations and see the country that he had fought for.
The differences between Mandela and then-president FW de Klerk were too wide. Prospects for peaceful co-existence appeared hopeless. Somehow with so many differences separating the liberation movement and the apartheid government, they still were able to talk and find each other, paving a way for a better South Africa.
Surely, with 30 years of democracy under their belt, the current crop of politicians can learn some lessons from the technical team that led Bafana Bafana in 1996 and the leaders who paved a way for South Africa to cross over into a democratic dispensation.
The current political environment requires maturity and the prioritisation of our nation state. As parties negotiate, we must hope they're guided by what will move the growth and development of our country forward — more so for the poor, weak and infirm.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.