World Cup Legacy

Andrew Layman:  PCB CEO

The assertion of some authority by government is to be welcomed.    In our own city, though it took some time, government acted decisively to arrest the slide into oblivion.    The turn-around team has had considerable support from the provincial (and national) government outside of what would be considered normal party-political considerations.    An objective analysis of normal party-political processes is that they obstruct good decision-making.   It is possible for progress to be paralysed by too much democracy.     Benevolent dictatorship has a good record historically speaking.    Its real weakness is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the human species to subdue self-interest for any length of time.    When dictators stop putting the good of the people first, they become malevolent and corrupted by power.    Democracy is not immune from the plague of self interest.   Indeed, the fact that a number of individuals might express a particular view based on self interest, should not be construed as an indication that public interest is being served.    It means that a majority have the same self interest, and not that a majority is subverting self interest to the common good.    Like children, we sometimes need authority and function better when it is there.  

The FIFA World Cup, because of its high stakes, has spurred us all into action.   One has the impression that government will act swiftly and decisively to prevent anything detracting from the splendour of the occasion.    It was interesting to read that the people who robbed journalists shortly before the opening of the tournament were arrested, charged and found guilty within forty-eight hours.   Many would not have believed this possible.    Now, I argue, if it could be done for the World Cup, why can’t it be done all the time?    Perhaps that’s being too naïve.  However, the achievement of this standard in dealing with crime should constitute a benchmark for the future.    Similarly, the efficiencies achieved in many spheres in order to satisfy the demands and expectations of the omnipotent FIFA and the foreign visitors should survive the tournament and become the revised targets of government, and private sector, service delivery.    The legacy goes beyond the fixed assets of stadia, airports and roads; it should constantly remind us that the South African public deserves no less than that offered to foreign visitors. 

In the terrain of labour, there have been interesting developments.  Some unions timed their actions so that the World Cup would be a successful lever; others have even waited for the tournament to get underway before they have complained about their wages.    In a sense, they are correct to assume that the right to strike is absolute and not a seasonal thing that expires for the duration of the World Cup.  It is interesting that Potchefstroom (was it?) rejected an application by an organisation to stage a demonstration the other day.   One has been told that all municipalities were instructed to decline such permission for the duration of the tournament.    Whether this degree of authority is justified is debateable.    I suspect that one of the reasons for this injunction was that the SAPS would be incapable of attending to their many World Cup duties, plus their normal crime-fighting, plus shepherding marchers along urban streets.    But it does occur tome that even if there is no soccer, demonstrations and marches are very disruptive and take the police away from their core business.   

As was bound to happen, various questionable acts are emerging, and there will be a lot more to come, I believe.    Among these are the revelations about public money being used to buy tickets.    I think I’m correct in saying that the municipality of Mangaung bought fifty thousand of them.   Whether these were given to poor people, who couldn’t otherwise afford to watch a match, or to relatives of councillors and officials, doesn’t really make much difference.   We do not pay rates, taxes and tariffs so that other people can go and watch soccer matches.     The chair of SCOPA described it as unacceptable; and so it is.    The really worrying aspect is that the national Treasury had to spell out that it was unacceptable, and quote the law, because the people responsible for our public money didn’t see anything wrong in it.   Perhaps this is something else that will be learned as part of the World Cup legacy.         

Leave a Comment