So Many Questions
Tshidiso Mokhoanatse, who leads the Agency for New Agenda party, went to court this week in an unsuccessful bid to stop the Springbok rugby team going to the World Cup. Chris Barron asked him . . .
Aren’t you turning a very serious issue — transformation — into a cheap publicity stunt? If you say black people don’t matter, then I’ll agree with you. Black people do matter in this country. So there is no cheap political [posturing] here, we are not trying to gain any points. So you believed there was a realistic chance of getting the court to stop the team from leaving? We did a very important tactical move. What we achieved in that court [is that] we have removed the responsibility for the transformation of sport, and rugby in particular, away from the minister and away from Saru [the South African Rugby Union] and we have put it within the purview of our courts. We are very happy that finally institutions entrusted with safeguarding our constitution are now going to get involved. We’re not going to be shouting at [Sports Minister Fikile] Mbalula, we’re not going to be shouting at Saru; they will be ordered to do things in a particular way in terms of our constitution. It was a technical move to move this to the court, to raise the bar so that the nation has to start a conversation about this. Don’t you think the nation started talking about transformation before you came along? Just talking. What do you think has happened in the past 21 years? Do you want to tell me there has been transformation? What have you been doing, what’s your record of activism? When the call was made to fight apartheid I raised my hand at age 16 in 1976 and joined MK [Umkhonto weSizwe]. My record is impeccable. What has your party done? We’re a new party, started in 2013. What has it done for transformation? We are working in communities. We are saying to black people: the time has come for you to cut your dependence on white South Africans. An impression has been created that black people are not capable, they have to depend on crumbs that are coming from the table. And you feel this goes for rugby, too? It goes to rugby, it goes to any sport. What we have done is we have ushered in a new chapter in the jurisprudence of this country where the courts must get involved in the issue of transformation in accordance with the constitution. Didn’t the judge reject your argument that the composition of the team is inconsistent with the constitution? If you listen to what the judge said, he said sport in general, and in particular rugby, is moving at a snail’s pace and it needs to be
transformed. So he took our side. What are you looking for in the Springbok team? Demographic representivity? Of course. Eighty percent of the population is black. It’s as simple as that. Eighty percent of representation in all sporting codes must be black. How are we going to get there? Your Absas, your MTN, your Vodacom — the same amounts they put into rugby and cricket and other sports they must put into the townships to develop the same sports there. They’re not doing that. Would you expect the townships to produce an Olympic swimmer when the schools have no swimming pool? Competence and merit are based on access to resources. We are saying that until the playing field is levelled, we can’t talk about transformation. Is this the private sector’s job or the government’s? The government and Saru have failed. We need a new instrument for transformation in our constitution and our courts, knowing that they cannot be corrupted. Shouldn’t you be taking the minister to court to force him to execute his mandate? We have gone to the court to take it away from him because he has failed to carry it out in the past 21 years. The court must tell him how to run that business. That is our approach. Is this about rugby at all or are you just using it to raise your political profile? Not at all. What are your political ambitions? We have a political party that is registered in terms of the laws of this country, we’re registered with the IEC [Independent Electoral Commission] and we will be contesting the upcoming elections. So you’re using the Springbok team as a vehicle for your political hopes? No, no. The judge concurred with us that transformation is not just about sport, it cuts across everything, and so we should look beyond rugby. But for you this is not about rugby or even transformation, it’s about furthering your own political goals? If the country remains untransformed, if the economy is still in white hands, then so be it. Meaning what? Let me be perceived as using transformation and rugby as a political tool. The fact is that 21 years down the line we hardly have a product on the shelves of Pick n Pay and Woolworths and Shoprite that is manufactured by a black-owned company. So if people think that we’re using rugby, let them have that view. Rugby and cricket epitomise resistance to transformation, so why not?