The ICC have been asked to “investigate and consider action against CSA for failings of membership”.
TELFORD VICE | Cape Town
IF you feel the need to take a swing at Cricket South Africa (CSA) — and who among those who hold the game dear does not — join the queue. This week the suits with the terminally tangled pinstripes were hit by a right hook from AfriForum, who threatened to set lawyers on them. On the same day came a left hook from the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), who wrote to the ICC demanding intervention. A day earlier the Democratic Alliance (DA), the official opposition, fired a straight jab — predictably aimed at government’s chin.
The trigger was CSA’s decision, following a meeting with minister of sport Nathi Mthethwa on Monday, to hire only black and brown consultants unless it could be proven none suitable were available.
AfriForum is a right-wing pressure group. The SAIRR espouses liberalism. They are small but punchy voices on opposite ends of South Africa’s political spectrum. The DA are a centrist party who lean more right than left in global terms. For CSA to have goaded all three into lashing out on the same issue within 24 hours of each other is an achievement of sorts.
Either CSA have got something right by irritating people who rarely share a view, or they have shown themselves to be incapable of keeping any of the people happy any of the time.
On their website, AfriForum said they had “instructed its legal team to investigate possible legal action” and quoted Ernst Roets, their head of policy and action, as saying CSA’s resolution “can in no way be regarded as anything other than unjustifiable racial discrimination”.
The SAIRR’s letter, the work of Hermann Pretorius, their deputy head of policy research, asked “the board of directors of the ICC to investigate and consider action against [CSA] for failings of membership” and claimed CSA had “increasingly strayed from the values of the ICC”.
The DA’s website said transformation “can only be achieved with political will on the part of the government to develop sports at a grassroots level” and that “this decision … will not address the dysfunction that is currently reigning in South African cricket”.
At issue is perceived government interference in the form of CSA’s perceived acceptance of the imposition of affirmative action in their hiring policies. All three of the complaining organisations are seen, perhaps unfairly, to represent largely white causes. What they seem to have ignored in this case is that quotas and targets favouring black and brown South Africans over whites are common in all sectors of the country’s economy as an attempt to correct centuries of legislated racism in favour of whites.
The fact that whites had exclusive access to the best schools — and thus to good coaching and facilities — and that they alone were allowed to live close to the better grounds explains why most of South Africa’s most prominent players have come from that community despite them comprising less than 10% of the population in a country where most of the people who play the game are black and brown. South Africa have never put their best team on the field because they have never known who their best players are. An imperfect experiment with democracy was begun in 1994, but instead of delivering a fairer life for all the country has become, according to the World Bank, the most unequal society on earth.
But CSA’s promise to Mthethwa means most of the obvious candidates to work as consultants — Jacques Kallis, Allan Donald and Gary Kirsten, for instance — have been all but disqualified by the whiteness that gave them the opportunities that helped them make the most of their talent.
Could the latest in CSA’s long list of assailants make a case for state meddling? Officially, the ICC takes a dim view of politicians getting too close to the affairs of the game. That was their reason for suspending Zimbabwe in July 2019. But the Indian and Pakistani boards have not been nailed for being unhealthily friendly with their governments. India won’t play Pakistan unless Delhi approves, and as patron of the board prime minister Imran Khan has a major say in Pakistan’s cricket affairs. Happily, he also has a wealth of knowledge and experience as the pre-eminent allrounder of his era.
India and Pakistan are exponentially more valuable to the world game in every sense than Zimbabwe, who are at best expendable and at worst a blight on international cricket from the financial and administrative perspectives. So taking strong action against them in order to be seen to uphold the rules would likely not be challenged, unlike what would happen if India or Pakistan were the targets.
Where are South Africa on this sliding scale? Closer to Zimbabwe than to Pakistan, and nowhere near India. But probably far enough away from rock bottom to escape a knockout punch from the ICC.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 
The article that appeared on the cricketmay ( 06 September 2020), has reference .
Can someone please help to identify the true Nationality of Eugenia Kula Amiyeuw ( CSA – Independent Director) . The surname does not sound to be a South African name . It sounds more of West Africa ( Ghana)
Hello Tumi. Does it matter what her nationality is?