Anthony DuiganIt’s called the greatest international event in the world, it seems to be surrounded with more hype than even the Olympic Games and it’s reputed to draw more viewers. Be that as it may, the Soccer World Cup certainly comes with lots of excitement and plenty of controversy.

Held for the first time in Africa – in South Africa to be more precise – it has produced several major upsets but has also helped to burnish South Africa’s image.

The fact that two of the favoured teams – France and previous world champions, Italy – did not even make it past the opening round, and England were soundly beaten in the last 16 by Germany (the 4–1 defeat being their biggest loss ever in a World Cup), was almost overshadowed by the complaints against some very costly calls by referees and officials.

Genuine goals disallowed, off-side goals allowed, yellow cards unfairly handed out, etc, have led to growing calls for soccer to “grow up and join the digital generation”. In other words, do what rugby and cricket have been doing for some while – use technology to help the referees make correct decisions.

It’s only a game, you might say. Yes and no. It’s a professional extravaganza that is costing South Africa about US$7 billion. That’s a lot of money for a developing country and the jury is out on whether this will be judged in the future to have been a worthwhile investment. If you listen to the politicians and an upbeat tourism industry, that’s a yes. If you listen to some NGOs and other commentators, it’s a no.

Problem is the cost over-runs which always seem to accompany big projects (look at Wembley Stadium in London or the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff). The refurbishment and building of nine stadiums for the tournament cost nearly 12 times more than the original budget – over US$2,2 billion v US$200 million.

That aside though, the event has certainly ignited patriotism and (temporarily) united South Africans, immensely proud that we are delivering an outstanding World Cup. And that’s not my assessment but the view of FIFA, the world soccer body, and numerous visitors, including former US president, Bill Clinton.

But on the way our pride did take a hammering.

From the heights of exhilaration on June 11, the opening night of the Soccer World Cup when we drew with Mexico, to disillusionment and self-recrimination when we lost badly to Uruguay five days later, to mixed emotions of disappointment and pride on June 22 as we bowed out of the tournament but took full points off a demoralized France, beating them 2–1.

Two of the performances by our team, nicknamed Bafana Bafana (slang for “boys”), were world class. The 1–1 draw in the opening game with Mexico, ranked 17th in the world, and the win over France, ranked 9th, unlocked an outpouring of national pride and support for the team. After all, Bafana was ranked 83rd in the world going into the World Cup.

Now it’s into the final stages: the quarter finals (starting on July 2) will be a mainly Latin American affair (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay), with a sprinkling of Europe’s best (Spain, Germany and Netherlands) and a lone star from Africa (Ghana).

But in less than two weeks (July 11) it’ll all be over bar the shouting. Then what?

I have no inside track, but reading, listening and weighing up what’s being said and written makes me wary of what happens when the party’s over and we all come down to earth. I think the game of dirty politics will just continue where it left off.

There is little agreement within the ruling African National Congress and its alliance partners, Congress of South African Trade Unions and the Communist Party, as to how to heal the inequality within society and to keep the country going forward.

Their energy seems to be consumed by a struggle-to-the-death between the Capitalists within the alliance, out for self-enrichment at any cost, and the Socialists who continue to push for structural change to the economy. Both seek to monopolize power to advance their own causes. The poor are useful pawns in this. Little more.

Yes, I’m generalising. Not all members of the ANC are ruthlessly pursuing their self-interest. Many deeply concerned ANC members must decry what they see happening and want it to be different. But I’m not sure they have the influence to make their voices heard loudly enough to change things. That’s what bothers me.

When Rajmohan Gandhi, President of Initiatives of Change International, and his wife Usha were here in March as part of their world tour, Rajmohan emphasized the need to bridge the divide he saw between the leaders and the led. But the divide is across all levels of society – black – white, rich – poor, leaders and led. What will it take to build the bridges? Three things, in my view:

• A deliberate effort to restore and rebuild respect lost. Too many so-called leaders are seen as compromised by greed and corruption and have little credibility where and when it matters. So, change the motives and perceptions of the leaders!
• A crusade to connect communities at grassroots. This is within reach of ordinary South Africans – deciding to meet those they know least and maybe fear most. But I don’t under-estimate the challenge: a huge sea of apathy, and sometimes hostility, has to be overcome to get to first base.
• Targeted reconciliation initiatives. Taking specific communities where the divide is particularly strained – not only between black and white but also between black South Africans and immigrants from Africa – and spending time there to simply love and care.

IofC South Africa is planning such a reconciliation initiative in one of the most racially strained small towns in South Africa. More on that when there is something to report beyond good intentions!

Anthony Duigan is a communications and management strategy consultant who lives in a nature conservancy called Rhenosterspruit outside Pretoria and Johannesburg. He and his wife, Helen, are very active in both green and brown conservation issues and believe eco-spirituality and living simply are vital to the future of our planet.

NOTE: Individuals of many cultures, nationalities, religions, and beliefs are actively involved with Initiatives of Change. These commentaries represent the views of the writer and not necessarily those of Initiatives of Change as a whole.