”Blacks don’t have an identity in South African rugby because of the complexities of what constitutes black. Black is not coloured and coloured is not black. While this debate continues, the white conservatives sit back and play the role of puppeteer.”
These words are from my book, Springbok Rugby Uncovered, published eight months ago. My final chapter, in dealing with the power play within the corridors of the game, focused on the black versus coloured struggle that has become as prominent as provincialism.
Unfortunately, it is a division that keeps the white conservatives powerful within the game. They sit back and watch while black and coloured square up to each other, and then align themselves with whoever is the more prominent at the time.
When Silas Nkanunu was in control of South African rugby, the conservatives were supporters of everything black. They never challenged Nkanunu for fear of it being ”misinterpreted” as racism, and were also wary of government involvement and disapproval. Publicly, the black leadership was in control, but it did not stop the white conservative element from undermining the leaders’ influence.
Black leadership was viewed as being weak because of the insistence, from among the likes of Nkanunu, on seeking compromise with the provincial unions, especially when it came to transformation, and to avoiding confrontation.
Nkanunu, on resigning as SA Rugby president, said he had failed his people on the transformation issue. He was not alone. The black leadership of rugby, since 1992, has adopted an attitude of reconciliation and talked up the virtues of the tolerance required to change inherently racist mindsets.
This patience, which they sold to their constituency as an act of goodwill in the unification process, was also lethal in undermining their leadership. I don’t believe it was noble. My view is it was a cop-out to the confrontation that is 13 years overdue — and that concerns white dominance of the sport.
Black leadership within South African rugby has been lacking in conviction when it comes to transforming the game. Individual agendas have been of a greater motivation than making rugby an inspiration for all South Africans.
Vice-president Mike Stofile — his orchestrated media attack on the SA Rugby leadership the latest case in point — is an example of the black administrator who was willing to accommodate the existing leadership when it served his purpose, but who has never taken a consistent view on what is needed to serve the game.
Stofile’s only valid claim in his media outburst was that of window-dressing when it came to the selection of the Springbok squad for last year’s grand slam tour. But there was no complaint from Stofile during the tour when black players were overlooked. There was also no complaint from him earlier in the season when the jockeying for positions within SA Rugby president Brian van Rooyen’s hierarchy was at its most aggressive.
Stofile was a willing accomplice to the decisions taken in South African rugby over the past year. His only stand on transformation related to the South African under-19 team when he insisted on more (African) black representatives.
Mveleli Ncula, in his capacity as CEO of the now-defunct South African Rugby Football Union, has also made all the right public noises in the past two years. He has often gone on record as saying the lack of black representation was unacceptable, but every time you bumped into him on the cocktail circuit he was still only making noises. There was no action, no resistance to the leadership he now knocks and no accountability for what was going on within the organisation.
Ncula’s tenure as CEO delivered nothing of significance. He is being offered a retrenchment package because he is not good enough to be in a role of leadership in the game. It has nothing to do with him being black. Stofile’s claim that Ncula is being sidelined for being black is merely convenient.
The balance of power has shifted away from the black leadership because those who remained were not strong or competent enough to withstand the onslaught of the dominant conservative element.
But it would be foolish on the part of the conservatives, be they white or coloured, to think the situation is permanent, which makes Andre Markgraaff’s media outburst against Stofile, the minister of sport and the government even more ridiculous.
Markgraaff once again showed himself intolerant of black leadership and unaccepting of the government’s influence in South African sport. Typically, his attack on black politicians was followed by a private meeting with Minister of Sport and Recreation Mankhenkesi Stofile (Mike’s brother) and a defence based on being misquoted!
Seven years after he left the game in disgrace after calling Mluleki George, among others, a kaffir, Markgraaff was full of bravado in telling his constituency, through Rapport, that he and South African rugby would not stand for political interference in the way the game’s authorities conducted their business or their team selections.
A few days later he was telling Mankhenkesi Stofile that the paper had got it all wrong. The minister was not fooled. He warned Markgraaff. Stay out of politics. You’ve been hurt once before because of a failure to think before speaking.
Van Rooyen knows what he inherited from Nkanunu. The black versus coloured fight was present in the pre-unity days of the South African Rugby Union, despite it being recognised as a non-racial organisation.
Van Rooyen was a player in those days and has an appreciation that coloured is not necessarily coloured (because of the Muslim/Christian conflict), just like white is not all white because of the English and Afrikaans cultural divide.
Van Rooyen’s advantage over his predecessor is that he understands the mentality of the Afrikaner. Being Afrikaans-speaking himself, he knows the culture and knows what buttons to press.
The Afrikaners got Van Rooyen into power, even though his compromise was to bring Markgraaff back into the fold. Van Rooyen knows he has to find a balance between appeasing those who got him selected and those black leaders who determine his standing as a role-player in South African sport.
He cannot take sides, regardless of the personalities involved. If he backs Markgraaff, he alienates his potential black African support base in the Eastern Cape. If he turns on Markgraaff, then the conservatives could do the same to him.
These past few weeks have been a juggling act for Van Rooyen and he has had to chastise both Markgraaff and Stofile and yet show support for both of them. He has had to play down black versus Afrikaner conflict, get the government back on his side and also keep the conservatives comfortable.
Through all of this he has had to keep his eye on the World Cup bid, the probability of a new Anglo/South African provincial tournament and the lobbying for the fifth regional Super 14 franchise — a fight that is about black and white, the haves and have-nots, the wind of Port Elizabeth and the dust of Bloemfontein, the black stronghold of the Eastern Cape and the conservative heartland of the Central Unions — about everything but the game of rugby.
Mostly, Van Rooyen has had to keep his eye on Stofile and Markgraaff, his two senior deputies — two individuals with the capability of shafting him. Van Rooyen knows he backed the wrong two horses in his first year. So why, you may ask, are the two of them still in the game? Just like black is not black, white is not white and coloured is not coloured, being in does not mean you are still in and being out does not mean you are necessarily history.
Just ask the very influential Gideon Sam and Rian Oberholzer. Even when they are out, they are very much in when it comes to determining the future of South African rugby.
Simple, really.
Mark Keohane, the former Springbok communications manager, is group sports editor of Highbury Monarch Communications. You can read him daily on www.keo.co.za