Norman Arendse, the new president of Cricket South Africa, tells Lucky Sindane that quotas are not only desirable, but a constitutional imperative.
Criticisms have been levelled by some Australians about Cricket South Africa’s decision to play in Zimbabwe and that you represented the Zimbabwean government in its case against the rebel players.
The situation in Zimbabwe differs fundamentally from the situation that prevailed under apartheid South Africa: under apartheid only white males were permitted to represent the country; the government gave material support only to white cricketers and white cricket structures and ignored any kind of development in black, poor and disadvantaged areas.
In Zimbabwe I am not aware of any government decision or decree from [President Robert] Mugabe that white players are not allowed to play for Zimbabwe. In relation to the dispute between the Zimbabwe Cricket Union (ZCU) and certain white players, it is common knowledge that I represented the ZCU in those disputes.
Those disputes were served before an independent tribunal, comprising the solicitor general of India and a well-known South African judge. Their findings speak for themselves: the white players had no cause for complaint and their complaints were dismissed as being without substance.
As far as Mugabe’s policies are concerned, I have in my capacity as chairperson of the General Council of the Bar issued many statements condemning the human rights’ abuses and the intimidation of legal practitioners and members of the judiciary.
What do you see as major challenges in cricket and how do you plan to overcome them?
The major challenges are twofold and appear to be contradictory, but they are not. First, the major challenge remains to become the number one cricket-playing nation in the world and, second, to make cricket accessible to all people in the country, particularly those who were previously denied opportunities to become involved in the game at any level, be it in administration, coaching or actually playing the game.
How would you define transformation in South African cricket and has the game transformed enough?
Transformation in South African cricket is informed by the values in our Constitution: equality, dignity, fairness, transparency and accountability. Importantly, our Constitution not only defines formal equality, but also sanctions the imperative of affirmative action.
Our Constitution (and thereby also Cricket South Africa) recognises that our society remains inherently unequal and abnormal and that measures must be taken to affirm those who were previously denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by whites under apartheid. Although cricket has transformed more or better than other codes of sport, such as rugby, we have not done nearly enough to transform the game fully, as demanded by our Constitution.
The last audit done by Cricket South Africa shows black South Africans are heavily under-represented still at all levels of the game.
What is your take on the cricket quotas, because some black players are selected and get to watch the tournament from the stands — for example, Roger Telemachus during the Cricket World Cup?
For as long as we have an abnormal society quotas and targets are not only desirable, but also a constitutional imperative.
Cricket South Africa will continue to employ quotas and targets in a strategic, but transparent, manner in terms of which all involved in the game are fully aware of it and the rules that apply in relation to it.
The fact that some black players have been selected only to watch a tournament from the stands, such as Roger Telemachus during the Cricket World Cup, will never happen again under the new administration. The selection of Telemachus, Loots Bosman, Robin Petersen and other black players only to sit on the sidelines, demonstrates the dishonesty and insincerity of those who selected them in the first place.
How, if at all, does it affect black cricketers’ games knowing they have been selected because there has to be a certain number of black players in the team?
I don’t think it affects black cricketers at all. They regard it as an opportunity to show that they can play the game at the highest level; opportunities previously denied them.
In fact that is what quotas and targets are all about: giving black cricketers opportunities previously denied. It is obviously up to them to make full use of these opportunities.
Cricket South Africa will never permit the selection of black cricketers who are not able to play at that level. Herschelle Gibbs, Paul Adams, Makhaya Ntini, Ashwell Prince and other leading black players were all selected because they were black, but also because it was felt that they had the potential to succeed at the highest level. Fortunately, in their case, they proved us right and their detractors wrong.
Some cricket purists complain that the one-day game has diluted the sport and think even less of the 20-overs game. What is your view on these?
I do not share this view. I think the one-day game and the 20-overs game has, in fact, enhanced Test cricket. If, for example, you look at the Australians, they score so quickly in Test cricket that the opposing side is immediately under pressure to avoid losing the game by lunchtime on the second day and this is because they score at four runs per over. Most of their games finish within four days. This is a direct result of the one-day game and the 20-overs game, where players learn to score quickly.
Bowlers also have to learn accurately to avoid being hit in one-day and 20-overs cricket. So this also does much to improve the quality of the bowling. Spinners have to spin the ball more and fast bowlers have to bowl really fast in these forms of the game. This results in the quality of Test cricket being improved.
We also do not have a choice, but to play one-day and 20-overs cricket to grow the game and to attract newcomers. This is in line with the vision of Cricket South Africa to broaden the base and to make cricket the number one sport in the country.
The Jacques Kallis omission has caused a controversy; do you think it was handled properly and, if not, what do you think all the parties ought to have done to minimise the controversy?
As far as I am concerned, the conveners of the selectors handled the issue very well and I do not see the reason for any controversy.
But, given that there has been a controversy, I must question from which quarter the controversy started. This quarter represents that section of cricket that is opposed to transformation and opposed to cricket being headed by a mainly black administration. I therefore question the motives of those who have caused this controversy.
In fact, immediately after the team was announced, there was only one cricket commentator of much seniority that questioned the inclusion of a player in the squad: ironically, he questioned the inclusion of Justin Kemp. Not one of the black players’ selection was questioned by any cricket journalist as far as I can gather.
A senior cricket journalist (Colin Bryden of the Sunday Times) in fact speculated that Kallis was omitted because he bats ”too slowly”.
Suddenly, however, after Kallis announced his resignation as vice-captain, certain journalists opportunistically climbed on to the bandwagon and proceeded to criticise Cricket South Africa for omitting Kallis. The criticism is not justified.