France goes home, RSA stays home

How much money has the South African government invested in stadiums instead of streetlights? What do victories and defeats on the pitch mean in the context of dramatic poverty and social inequities in the populous?

Abundant sympathies have been expressed today for South Africa, whose team, despite a spirited victory over the dysfunctional French team, failed to qualify for the Round of 16 (Mexico edged out RSA through its superior goals differential for the second spot in the group behind Uruguay).

I suspect that most South Africans want more to come from the World Cup than balls bouncing against the back of the net. South Africa ranks 129th (out of 182 countries) on the United Nations’ Human Development Report. If you feel sorry for the team’s losses in football, consider that life expectancy in South Africa is 51.5 years. And that 42.9% of the population lives on less than US$2.00 a day. And that 8 million people lack potable water.

Granted, national spirit (at least as seen from afar on ESPN) appears profound as the country hosts this largest-of-all-global-events and cheers its team in particular. But we should be careful before accepting that stadiums are a sign of progress, given the lack of investment in basic infrastructure and human welfare.

It’s especially ironic that it is the post-apartheid, African National Congress (ANC) government that has spent billions on this global sporting spectacle while basic needs go unmet.

The ANC dates back to the early 20th century. It began as a moderate movement seeking equal rights, but following WW2 and the institution of apartheid by the (white) National Party in 1948, the struggle transformed into an armed resistance.

Resistance intensified, but so did the repression. As discussed in an earlier post on Youth Day, the June 16th national holiday that commemorates the 1976 massacre of school children at Soweto, South Africa experienced intense violence throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

In the course of my stay (1997) in post-apartheid South Africa, people told me that in the 1980s the violence in the townships was so intense that many South Africans believed that the government would fall at anytime and the country would go up in flames. For many South Africans, the stalemate between the repressive security forces and resistance appeared to be a war without end.

Remarkably, the ANC and the apartheid government negotiated a political transition to a multiracial electoral democracy. In 1990, ANC leader Nelson Mandela was freed from prison (after 27 years); Mandela went on to win the presidency four years later in South Africa’s first elections in which Black South Africans could vote.

The South African ‘miracle’ of affecting political transition through negotiations rather than persisting with the violent conflict has made South Africa a model in conflict resolution. (Israel should pay attention to the lessons from RSA on ending apartheid and its associated violence). But the fact that the ANC negotiated a settlement rather than winning the war meant that many compromises were made.

Although the ANC won the elections in 1994, they had lost the revolution. The ANC gained control of the government, but wealth and power remained in the hands of the white minority. There were tremendous expectations following the end of aparthied: for potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity, paved roads, school teachers, health clinics. Meeting these expectations has been difficult for each successive ANC government. More South Africans live in substandard housing in shantytowns now than under apartheid.

Perhaps it is easier to provide spectacular pageantry and a splashy month-long party than the long term investments needed in the social sector.