Drovers In South African Cricket

I have already written a couple of times on the politics of "race" in South African cricket. The thrust of both posts was celebratory. Here I reflected on the Malay cricketing diaspora and its historical niche in South African history. More recently I wrote about Andre Odendaal's fascinating book The Story of an African Game. I used that review to make a couple of points about the state of the game in the country more than a decade on from the ending of official apartheid. Two points are worth restating. At national and provincial levels the sport remains largely white. And I think the general principles behind the United Cricket Board of South Africa's Transformation Charter - as a facilitative mechanism to enable majority representation at all levels - is a worthwhile attempt to overturn entrenched racial discrimination.

I got a number of responses to that post and want to highlight a couple. Norm agreed with what I had to say about "representativity" but was "not so sure it should apply at the level of the national team". I understand this misgiving though, if handled sensibly, then I do think that the longer-term benefits of wider representation will become clear (though I realise that as in nearly all sports it's today's result that matter). By contrast, Ken takes issue with the entire idea of what he labels "positive discrimination in any form". And he goes on to make an explicit link between what he takes to be the wrongheaded selection of non-white players (it's clear that's who he means even though he doesn't say so) and a more general sense of social wellbeing of the country: "I feel that promoting unmeritorious players to the national team will work against the aims of trying to promote a greater racial harmony in the country - instead only helping to enhance divisions".

I have two responses to this. Though I understand the symbolic significance of sport, not least in the South African context, and the way that it has long been politicised, I think that the promotion of "greater racial harmony" in any generalisable sense depends not one jot on national cricket selection policy. South Africa remains a deeply divided society. For all the undoubted achievements in the extension of political and civil rights to the majority population, underwritten by an exemplary liberal constitution, South Africa remains a deeply divided society. The gap in inter-racial income inequalities - especially between black and white people - remains obscenely wide while inquality within "racial" groups has substantially widened. Poverty and social exclusion remain the norm for the vast majority of people. It is not hyperbole to suggest the existence today of "economic apartheid". I don't see how the selection of non-white players - again no matter what the symbolic significance - will enhance these divisions. White privilege - in society as well as sport - remains a fact of life.

The second, narrower cricketing argument made by Ken turns on his implication that "unmeritorious players" have indeed been promoted to the national team. This is the standard argument and raised a furore when five non-white players were selected for South Africa's 2003 World Cup squad. The usual nonsense came bubbling to the surface: the selection policy was "apartheid in reverse" (yeah, whatever); or even that the "race" issue had distracted the team and contributed to its abject performance.

I was prompted to look into the substance of the claim - that unmeritorious non-white players were being promoted - by this illuminating piece by Steve Busfield in The Guardian. This is precisely the argument used by Kevin Pietersen to leave South Africa and opt to play for England: "Pietersen has turned his back on the land of his birth because, he says, non-white players are being given an unfair advantage". Pieterson's mentor, Clive Rice, uses stronger terms: "White players are being driven out of our country in droves". I'm not quite sure how many people constitute a "drove" (or even several "droves") but I am curious about just who the drovers are.

Here are the facts for test match cricket. In recent years only three non-white (I'm using the old racial classification for convenience) players have played more than ten test matches: Herschelle Gibbs, one of the best and most destructive openers in world cricket; Makhaya Ntini, an aggressive and match-winning fast bowler; and, Paul Adams, the quirky left-arm spinner who's been in and out of the side. Gibbs and Ntini would make any international team except perhaps Australia. Adams's record is marginally better that his rival, Nicky Boje. Indeed, in exactly the same number of matches, Adams has taken more wickets at a better average that Ashley Giles, the stalwart of the England team.

How about other non-white players? Hashim Amla (3 tests) didn't have an auspicious start to his international career but has an excellent domestic record and is still young; Charl Langeveldt (1) made a great debut and was injured in the process and is one of the leading domestic wicket takers; Justin Ontong (2) didn't shine in his two outings but possesses a lot of potential and leadership skills; Robin Peterson (5) made a modest start to his test career but offers some important all-round options; and, Thami Tsolekile (3) showed some guts with the bat and is a competent keeper.

Ummm, that's it. Three proven test players and five younger players who all have decent first class records and have shown varying degrees of promise in their limited test match opportunities. So these are the drovers - the ones unceremoniously shoving Kevin Pietersen out of the way and into the clutches of grateful England selectors. Steve Busfield articulates the reality of South African selection policy in the clearest terms:

A quick glance at the South African cricket team would reveal that most of the team is white, despite the supposedly iniquitous efforts of the new regime. In fact, there is a great deal of dispute about whether there is a quota system in South Africa, or whether there is just an attempt to make small redress for the apartheid past by favouring the non-white player if two cricketers of equal talent are vying for a place in the team.

And that says it all. The Transformation Charter is both a very modest mechanism enabling players who would otherwise be on the margins to compete for places and the selection polcy of the UCBSA should be seen for what it is: a "small redress" for the decades of formal and informal racial discrimination. It is in fact a noble gesture. But if you listen to the ranting of Rice and his ilk you'd think it was the end of civilisation - well, in some ways it is the end of their civilisation and about time too. Greater racial harmony won't come from it because the solution to that problem lies elsewhere. But in the fickle world of sport the drovers may produce another great player and I'm looking forward to that. In the meantime, England supporters should relish Pietersen who will be a cricketing star even while he carries a bagful of cant and prejudice.