Saturday, April 20, 2013

RUGBY TRANSFORMATION: REVOLUTION OR RECONCILIATION?

Every now and again the issue of transformation in rugby crops up. It seems to me that it follows a predictable pattern. Someone (usually in government) notices the apparent lack of transformation in rugby and enquiries are made. This is usually followed by defensive rugby bosses scurrying to prove they have a number of development projects in place and that there are up and coming players of colour in all the provincial squads and a few in the national squad. This seems to quell the furore temporarily, until the next time. The reality however, is that rugby continues to be a predominantly white sport: that is certainly the impression I get when I flip through the channels broadcasting South African matches on any given sporting weekend.

I support the rugby development efforts being made in communities where rugby is an unknown sport. I am sure there are many dedicated people trying their best to make a difference. Their efforts must be supported and strengthened. Rugby development needs to be expanded further and marketed at grassroots level in schools and communities. Provincial squads and the national squad must be intentional in their selection of players of colour. If they are unwilling or resistant to that selection, I support government intervention as a last resort to make it happen. Taking such a drastic measure is undesirable as it creates resistance and forces people into entrenched positions from which it becomes well nigh impossible to reconcile opposing points of view. That drastic step I think can be prevented if we begin to address the deeper issues surrounding rugby as a sport in our country.

Before we begin to consider those deeper issues, please allow me to digress for a moment to share some of my own history with rugby. I have never really been a big rugby fan. At school I played soccer and cricket. Rugby to me seemed to glorify violence and brute force, and I used that as my rationale for not being a big fan. I used to watch the occasional game on television and I kept abreast of the various competitions. It was around 1986 or 1987 I made a deliberate decision to stop watching rugby. I made the decision after reading a book by Frederik van Zyl Slabbert (I think it was The Last White Parliament). In the book he tells of his bold and unpopular decision to stop playing rugby.

The essence of Van Zyl Slabbert's argument was that rugby had become a symbol of Afrikaner nationalism. He was referring to the worst manifestation of Afrikaner nationalism in the form of apartheid. Rugby had become the sport that united the volk, that proved the physical and sporting superiority of the white Afrikaner. Rugby was a part and parcel of Afrikaner identity. Rugby was followed with devotion and fervour, akin to a national religion. Even in the deepest years of apartheid rugby was played at international level. Foreign teams were welcomed to South Africa and their presence celebrated as a triumph over politics and sanctions, in much the same way that Hitler got away with hosting the 1936 Olympic Games. International teams were sensitive to the apartheid regime in that they discreetly refrained from sending players of colour to play against our whites only teams. White English speakers were welcome to play rugby, but it was always on the terms of the Afrikaner Broederbond appointed rugby bosses.

What Van Zyl Slabbert said struck a chord with me and I decided that I could not watch a sport that was to all intents and purposes a bastion of apartheid. Admittedly it was an easy decision. It would have been a lot more difficult were I a huge fan or an active participant. The decision to stop watching rugby has been difficult to reverse. I still struggle to watch because to me it seems rugby still has those undertones of white nationalism.

Rugby had a watershed moment in 1995 when the World Cup was hosted in South Africa. As a nation we were riding the crest of the wave: full scale civil war had been narrowly averted, we had a President who preached reconciliation and South Africa was revered as the role model of a relatively peaceful transition to democracy. President Mandela understood the importance of rugby to the white community and saw the World Cup Final game as a powerful opportunity for national reconciliation, to reach out to the white community. The images of a genuinely proud and elated President Mandela in his Springbok rugby jersey embracing Francois Pienaar, holding the trophy aloft, is an image etched in the memories of all who watched that game (and yes, I did watch the game!). In that moment our President united the nation. It was a defining moment for rugby and it presented a genuine opportunity for the game to become inclusive, to promote healing and reconciliation in our nation. That opportunity was lost and lost badly.

The fundamental problem as I see it, is that transformation has been interpreted on both the side of the government and on the side of the rugby bosses, as getting the racial balance right. There is the constant cry from government that there needs to be more black players, that the game must become more representative. There are a lot more black players and coaches than there were ten years ago, but the sport remains predominantly white. Recently there have been threats to force representivity, which has been met with fierce resistance. To many in government, the only way to remedy the situation is through a rugby revolution. I would suggest that this would not be the appropriate way forward for now, that there may be a way to use rugby transformation as an act of nation building and reconciliation. I do not think it is too late to capitalise on the foundation laid by Mr Mandela in 1995.

It seems to me that since 1994, rugby has morphed itself into a sport that now represents a form of nationalism that encompasses mother tongue English and Afrikaans whites and so called coloureds. Black players are in the minority and are welcome to play, as long as they stay in the minority. Somehow we need to move beyond the situation where people feel threatened by black players to the point where black players are embraced and welcomed for the good of the sport and of the nation.
 
The first step is an acknowledgement on all sides of the role rugby played in Afrikaner and white nationalism. It seems to me in the white community there is a blanket amnesia about apartheid. There is a constant refrain in the white community that, “we need to move on,” that apartheid is something of the forgotten past. Any reminder of our apartheid past is met with anger, resentment and denial. This apartheid amnesia seems to have blocked out the horrors of our apartheid past and how the black majority suffered enormously at the hands of the white minority. Very few white people followed the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Very few white people have made the effort to face the pain of our past. Very few white people have made the effort to familiarise themselves with the history of the struggle against apartheid. Only a minority of those who served in the security forces that enforced apartheid in brutal and cruel ways have spoken out. Most remain silent. I believe this amnesia and denial is a coping mechanism to escape having to face the pain and the guilt of the past.
 
I believe one of the keys to break the amnesia and silence, to talk about the past, allowing stories to be told, is rugby. Let's allow the white community to talk about rugby, about rugby history, about rugby heroes, about sanction busting international rugby. I am optimistic and perhaps even naïve enough to believe that our black community will listen and celebrate those stories. Once we're talking, let's hear the black voices (especially those in the Eastern Cape) who love the game. Let's hear the sad stories of those talented black players, who could never realise their full rugby potential due to apartheid. Then we need to be big enough and courageous enough to own up to how rugby was used to undergird apartheid, how it alienated and separated black and white communities from one another, and how it continues to infect and pervert the game. Only then can we apologise and ask for forgiveness. This rugby mini TRC is the first step. It cannot be skipped or glossed over, no matter how uncomfortable or painful.

The second step is to reach out to one another, to find meaningful ways where rugby can become an agent of reconciliation, a fresh symbol of a united South Africa, building on that moment with President Mandela at the Rugby World Cup in 1995. This is where most of the work will have to be done. We will have to talk to one another to see what will work best. Good white intentions will have to be tempered so that they do not come across as patronising. Black suspicions will need to be addressed and allayed with some very good and honest marketing. I suspect that the most innovative ideas will come from our youth, especially those of the so called “born free” generation who carry the least amount of baggage from our past. Schools will have to play a leading role. Already in the old Model C schools that offer rugby as a sport, there are many very talented black players who are making an impact on schools rugby. One approach might be to twin such a school with a township school that does not offer rugby to provide opportunities for those interested to play the game. Rugby talent at schools level must be nurtured in such a way that it feeds into the higher levels of the game. Talented players could be incentivised with scholarships to move onto college and university rugby. Similarly, rugby clubs must be reaching across the divides, finding innovative ways to market the sport in communities where rugby has never been played.

The biggest challenge is going to be at the provincial, franchise and national levels where one has to deal with professional players and professional administrators. Once a person is paid to do a job, he or she has a vested interest in that job, which is natural and to be expected. If rugby transformation is perceived as a threat to their livelihoods, stern resistance is to be expected. A way forward here would be to seek a “buy in” commitment from both players and administrators in such a way that their livelihoods are not threatened. They must be convinced that we are not only talking about rugby transformation, but also nation building and national reconciliation. Players' unions will need to be consulted and brought on board. There will of course be those who will not buy in, who will reject all efforts at meaningful transformation. They unfortunately will have to be asked to leave to make space for those who are true patriots (no matter the colour of their skin), who have both rugby and nation building close to their hearts.
 
President Mandela in 1995 united the nation around the game of rugby. Let's recapture that moment and use it as an opportunity for reconciliation. Let's transform the game in such a way that the wounds of the past are healed and people reach across the racial divides to turn rugby into a powerful symbol of a truly united, non-racial South Africa. I'm looking forward to watching rugby again!


Wednesday, April 3, 2013

SANDU: HERE I STAND

I resigned my membership of the SA National Defence Union (SANDU) on 1 April 2013. A number of people have asked me for my reasons. Here is my letter of resignation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                        Sand River Base
                                                                                                        Kruger National Park
                                                                                                        1 April 2013
SA National Defence Union
Pretoria

Sir/Madam,

RESIGNATION SANDU MEMBERSHIP

I hereby wish to tender my resignation with immediate effect as a member of the SA National Defence Union. I do so with deep regret and after much thought and reflection on the matter.

I joined SANDU circa 2003 for a few reasons. The first reason was selfish. At the time I felt uncertain of my own future in the SANDF and thought it would be a good idea to have some kind of backup should I need it. The other reason I joined is that I supported the idea of having unions in the SANDF. Unions had played a major role in our transition to democracy and I felt (as I still do) that they have an important role to play in helping to shape our young democracy. I also joined out of a genuine concern for the terrible conditions under which soldiers are asked to do their work and where they are expected to live. I was and still am concerned at how the underfunding of the Defence Force has eroded our capabilities and has had a profoundly negative impact on morale. I am at the front line when it comes to how badly people are off in the SANDF. I see how people struggle to make ends meet and I see how they struggle at work with woefully inadequate and outdated resources. I see how soldiers are expected to live in dilapidated and unhygienic barracks. I see how families are expected to live in houses that are in a terrible state of neglect and disrepair. I see how commanding officers struggle to fulfil their duties and how they struggle to motivate their members with the few resources they have at their disposal. I have seen how dedicated colleagues and fellow professionals in the SANDF have become demotivated and have left for the private sector. The political organisation to which I belong supported my constitutional right to belong to the union of my choice and I have never felt a conflict of interest between my membership of the union and my membership of the political party. I defended SANDU after the 2009 Union Buildings incident as I felt the plight of soldiers had at long last been brought into the public domain. I was prepared to risk my career for SANDU when in 2009 we chaplains were asked to resign our membership, I refused and defended my right to belong to a union.

I expect my union to be fighting on my behalf and on the behalf of our soldiers on a number of issues. I expect my union to be fighting for better working conditions, better equipment, better housing and better benefits. I expect my union to be keeping the plight of soldiers in the public domain in such a way that sympathy not antipathy is evoked. I expect my union to be at the forefront lobbying for a bigger slice of the GDP. I expect my union to be vocal when the defence budget shrinks and conditions worsen for soldiers. I expect my union to be highlighting the effects of the underfunding of the SANDF. I expect my union to be engaging in vigorous debate with those who oppose defence spending. I expect my union to be lobbying members of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and other influential members of parliament across party political platforms. I expect my union to be engaging with the Minister and the Secretary of Defence, lobbying on behalf of soldiers. I expect my union to be in discussion with the office of the Military Ombudsman to help define roles and perhaps even to forge some kind of partnership. I expect my union to be engaging at an academic level with institutions, think-tanks and universities where these matters are discussed and researched. I expect my union to be presenting papers at academic colloquia and submitting papers to academic journals. I expect my union to be writing articles in newspapers and online forums, specifically to debate defence spending, the state of equipment and the service conditions of soldiers. I expect my union to present a detailed and comprehensive submission on the latest Defence Review. I expect my union to be involved when salaries and benefits are negotiated, fighting on behalf of soldiers. I expect my union to be fighting the insidious practice of linking rank to salary. I expect my union to be fighting on behalf of soldiers who have been abused or disadvantaged by their superiors. Most of all I expect my union to be consulting the rank and file members of SANDU on the issues which affect them.

Sadly on most of the above issues SANDU seems to be absent. I am only aware of SANDU when it comes to salary negotiations and occasionally when the union takes up the cudgels on behalf of a soldier who has suffered some kind of injustice. It is a role I have appreciated SANDU playing and I applaud its victories. I do however expect a lot more and find myself in the position where to me SANDU seems to be lacking. I am not aware of SANDU having taken a position on Defence spending, neither am I aware of its involvement in any debate on the matter. I am not aware of the union having taken the matter of the portion of GDP to be spent on Defence into the public domain for debate or even for information. The union seems to have taken a combative and alienating approach to the Portfolio Committee. A similar approach seems to have been taken with the Minister and the Secretary for Defence. I am not aware of any academic submission by the union, nor am I aware of its participation in any discourse at that level. I am not aware of any submission to the Defence Review. I am not aware of the union having consulted its members on the issues which affect them. I have never met my shop steward nor have I ever been invited to attend a union meeting. Notwithstanding all the above, I was still prepared to retain my membership of the union until the recent tragic events in the CAR unfolded.

It is SANDU's reaction to and the way in which it has dealt with the tragic events in the CAR that now leave me with no other option but to resign my membership. We had soldiers in the CAR under SANDF command as negotiated with the CAR government at that time. Our soldiers were attacked and they fought well and they fought bravely. The first public reaction from the union was on Twitter with the secretary's comments, “Zuma this is on you.” The next reaction was a statement calling for the immediate withdrawal of our soldiers from the CAR. I was disturbed and my disquiet began. There was no acknowledgement of the loss of human life nor was any attempt made to sympathise with those who had lost loved ones. There was no attempt by SANDU, as far as I am aware, to assist the dependants of those who had died or to highlight their plight with regard to the benefits they will receive. This to me is deeply disrespectful of those who have died. The outburst against the Commander in Chief was followed by another on Twitter against the CSANDF with a call for his resignation. It seems to me the union has forgotten that soldiers are under command and pledge their allegiance to their superiors. In my interaction with soldiers on the ground both the Commander in Chief and the CSANDF are held in very high esteem. One of my soldiers (who is a SANDU member) described the union as having become “rude” which indicates to me a dissonance between the union and its rank and file members. The calls for the withdrawal of soldiers from the CAR reflects a similar dissonance between the union and its members. The union certainly does not reflect my views on the CAR matter and it did not have a mandate from its members to make such statements. My experience of soldiers on the ground is an overwhelming support for staying in the CAR. A number of soldiers immediately made themselves available for deployment to the CAR, including me. The call for a withdrawal of soldiers also to my mind seems to be an incitement to mutiny, perhaps not in the legal sense but it certainly feels that way. I cannot help but get the feeling that the union is using the publicity gained for promoting personal political views and no longer reflects the views of its members.

The last straw for me was the decision to sue the SANDF over the remarks expressed by its spokesman concerning SANDU and SANDU's reaction to his statement on 27 March. I cannot allow my union subscription to be used for spurious litigation. The SANDF statement may be regarded as clumsy and inarticulate, but the perception of SANDU as being anti transformation and supportive of an old order agenda in the SANDF must be taken very seriously by the union. That perception may have some validity when the fact is that those who are vociferous in their opposition today to the SANDF were silent in the past when it came to the SADF. Similarly their voices were silent when there was widespread resistance to transformation by old SADF members after the SANDF was formed in 1995. I will illustrate this with some of my own experiences. I was designated for conscription into the SADF at the age of 16. While a student at Wits University I joined the End Conscription Campaign as I viewed the apartheid government of the day as illegitimate and could not see myself fighting for it. After the ECC was banned there was no other voice in the country that supported us. To the white community we were an anathema and to the black community our issue was small and insignificant compared to the scale of the struggle against apartheid. When eventually at the age of 28 I was forced through various circumstances to report for National Service, there was no voice inside or outside the SADF except my church, to support me and others in a similar position. When I refused to carry a weapon and was made to drill with a broomstick handle, the only support I had was from my church. When I joined the SANDF in 1996 I found myself having to do battle with those who resisted change and who were anti transformation. Once again I found myself isolated and alone. The point is that those who are vociferous in their opposition today were silent in the past, and however one looks at it, it casts aspersions on their present motives and to a large extent invalidates or even negates their present activism.

I think too that SANDU has missed some important opportunities when it comes to the CAR events. There was an opportunity by SANDU to partner with the SANDF to highlight the state of our equipment and the cumulative effects of Defence underfunding. There was an opportunity to highlight how badly off dependants are after the death of a member in service. There was an opportunity for the union to show love and compassion, but that too was missed.

I do not wish my resignation to be viewed as a personal attack on any member of SANDU staff. Neither do I wish to alienate myself from any SANDU staff member at a personal level. Should the circumstances change I would consider rejoining the union. For now however, my decision to resign remains steadfast. I shall be informing my Human Resources functionary accordingly so that the necessary administrative actions can be taken.

Yours faithfully,

CHAPLAIN A.J. TREU
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS TO SANDU STATEMENTS:




SANDU TWITTER FEED: