Sport in National Development Strategies

The sixty days of the Sydney Olympics that have just ended has been regarded by many, but certainly not all observers, as the most successful sporting extravaganza of all time. Of those who saw the pyrotechnic display associated with the closing ceremony, who will forget both it and the subliminal political and cultural messages that the show represented?

Here was an eclectic, youthful nation still unsure of its true place in the worlds league of nations, expressing its vitality, its growing self-confidence, its individuality and its potential. But here also is a sub continent wrestling with many critical, but potentially divisive political issues; the integration of significant new immigrant communities, particularly from Asia, the frustrations of the indigenous aborigines and the future status of the country, whether to remain loyal to the Crown or declare a Republic.

Despite all these and many more issues that the Australian people are currently debating, they presented a damn good show and they are also damn good at sport. The success of the Games will be a great confidence boost for Australians in realising their own true worth and the countrys politicians will no doubt endeavour to identify with that success and milk it for what political capital they are able. The Australian economy may just also benefit through increased tourism and other forms of inward investment.

But major sporting spectacles do not always run with such apparent efficiency and possibly reward their political hangers-on.

Imagine the scene. Im in the new National Stadium in Harare, Zimbabwe, waving my Kenyan flag, alongside my Kenyan host, a stadium funded by the Chinese in recognition of their support for the countrys Marxist leader, President Mugabee. The year is 1995 and the event is the opening ceremony of the 6th. All Africa Games. This pan-African event was regarded by many as one more means by which modern Africa could express its common ancestry, celebrate the individuality of its multifarious cultural traditions, but also its unity. 19th. Century colonialism brought much to the continent of Africa, good and bad. But since the rush to independence since the 1960s, the new nations, their people and their political leaders have not only endeavored to establish sovereign states. For many, creation of an African identity as an expression of common interests has become a priority and few African leaders have had the vision of President Nkruma of Ghana as to the importance and value of celebrating rather than apologising for Africas cultural inheritance.

The history of the All Africa Games has been thwart with problems, most notably as a consequence of mismanagement and political exploitation. But in 1995 it was planned to be different.

President Mugabee is seated only a few metres away, eager to impress his guests with the expertise of the Zimbabwean people to organise a showpiece Games. His guests include many African and international leaders and senior representatives of the International Olympic Committee and other supra-national governing bodies of sport. Unfortunately, there are not many other spectators in the stadium. The time of the opening ceremony has been changed without notice and public transport to the Stadium has been commandeered for the athletes. The mass of the population of Harare cannot even reach the Stadium, even if they could afford the entrance charge. The show, as they say, must go on. Unfortunately, the start is delayed by half an hour as the Torch is caught in the traffic of Harare. When it does arrive, it has to be constantly re-lit on its lap of honour. Disaster follows disaster, culminating in the failure of the public address system, thus precluding our listening to the swearing of the Games oath, the welcome of the President and the playing of the National Anthem.

My aim here is not to belittle or ridicule the quality of the Games organisation. The events themselves were, as sporting spectacles, both competitive and exciting, with many outstanding performances by some of the worlds finest athletes. The issue here is that the event was staged very much to provide President Mugabee with the opportunity to reinforce his position as a major player in African politics. He was only doing what generations of American Presidents had always done before him.

Many African leaders, most notably President Kenyatta of Kenya, had taken full advantage of the supposed political capital that could be gained through associating with the countrys athletic talent. Sporting heroes have long been regarded as valuable ambassadors on the world stage, providing a means to enhance a nations credibility and status. In Kenya, Kip Keino and Mike Boit were, and still are, legends. Their successes were seen as the nations success. For many new nation-states in Africa in the 1960s and 1970s creation of an identity was regarded as important, so too the need to attract inward financial investment. During these years the apparent progress of Kenya was evident.

Sport was helping in the creation of an identity as well as providing its people with a common bond and so a sense of nationhood; essential in a society that was divided by long established tribal and cultural differences.

For President Mugabee an opportunity to enhance his personal reputation, as one of Africas senior politicians was to be lost through the incompetence of the Games administrators. The opening ceremony was a political embarrassment, a lost opportunity to paper over some of the cracks that were already in evidence in the countrys economy and political system. The plan for him to open the Games later that week in the countrys second city of Bulawayo, was, not surprisingly abandoned. The strength of the South African team and their outstanding successes at the Games further under mined the value to Mugabee of the Games as a political stage. As an aside, the Games also offered additional evidence of the progress of South Africas return to the international sporting arena and the shifting of the axis of the continents sporting strength to the south.

The association and identification of politicians, political factions, political parties and governments with sport, at both local and national levels has been evident since sport began. The supposed benefits are legion. The creation of a sporting persona and an association with sporting success and sports superstars can win votes and offer enhanced status by association to politicians and national leaders. Individual and team success in sport can also foster a sense of belonging and nationhood among the peoples of a country, even when internal divisions are endemic. It can also bring to a country a positive, vibrant image and an identity that may, in turn, encourage inward investment as well as that rather nebulous feel good factor that many economists would argue can lead to increased worker confidence and a rise in national GDP. During the 1970s and 1980s sport often provided nations, both individually and collectively, with the opportunity to highlight on the world stage, in front of the mass media, specific political grievances.

By boycotting the Olympic and British Commonwealth Games, African nations were perceived to be able to apply political leverage to further marginalise South Africa from the world community. The publicity afforded this particular political action and those individuals who specifically mobilised the boycotts, was immense, yet the cost was minimal, except for the African athletes, the competitions and sport itself. But who cares if the political objectives are realised and one supposedly has God on ones side?

At the domestic level, a theme that will be returned to later, sport has been utilised and often manipulated to further social policy implementation and reinforce social control. Few countries could argue that the support given to sports programmes by national and local government agencies is not in part prompted by these goals. How often have we heard the identification of sport as the opiate of the masses?

But success in sport, by its very nature, cannot be guaranteed even with the support of science, both legal and illegal. For politicians to identify too closely with sport can have regrettable and sometimes serious consequences. For politicians it can result in embarrassment, bring an identification with failure, evidence of a lack of leadership skills and, at worst, gross incompetence. Yet despite these risks, during the second half of the 20th. Century, politicians were unilaterally eager to identify with sport for the supposed value that could be gained. But towards the end of the 20th. Century both the nature of sport was to change, so to, I would suggest, the perception of politicians of the potential value of sport. For many politicians around the world, sporting success of their countrys team and athletes has been much valued and widely exploited. But this situation is, perhaps, now changing as politicians, dare I say it, become more astute and less willing to risk reputations and status on an activity that they are increasingly unable to totally control because of the uncertainty of the outcomes of sporting contests?

The changing character of sport in the late 20th. Century can also make it less of a valuable ally to politicians and governments, whether they represent first world or third world nations. In the modern world, everything has global implications; sport is no exception. Sport is part of the global economy, with the international sports bodies such as the IOC, FIFA and the IAAF operating as multi-national corporations, negotiating multi-billion dollar deals with the international media and sponsoring companies.

Globalisation has been defined as a form of cultural imperialism, with the recipients of this global culture been exploited and manipulated to provide new consumer markets and a potential work force. The process is often regarded as a development emanating from North America, involving the imposition of a universal American-style culture, often perceived to be sub-standard. Existing cultural, including sporting practices, are marginalised and subsumed under the weight of the imposed new order. Sport is increasingly identified as being a key element of the global culture, only weakly resisted. But the diffusion of a specific capitalist global culture, which is largely uncontested, runs, in many respects, counter to actual experience.

An alternative explanation of events is that diffusion of a culture has more than one territorial origin, giving rise to a multi-faceted world culture, constantly in a state of flux, as new influences become apparent through the interconnection of several, varied cultures. In reality, North America, too, is subjected to the pressure of external cultural influences. International sport, directed in no small way by the multi-lateral agencies such as the IOC, FIFA and the IAAF., are able to weald power and influence and have at their disposal, budgets often superior to many third world countries. They are major players in the creation of a global sporting culture, with their own identifiable political economies. They are in reality an emerging and increasingly significant player in the global economy, alongside governments, multi-national corporations and other interest groups that have similarly become active across the globe, endeavouring to spread their influence and flex their economic muscle.

More contentious than the reality of the globalisation process is whether or not it can be contested. Local culture can theoretically resist, but is the struggle unequal, given the potentially overwhelming economic power of the global culture? Even if contestation is possible, the effectiveness and the degree of enthusiasm of the recipients to challenge the imposition of this global culture are questionable.

In the context of sport, as the controlling bodies become more powerful, presidents of these organisations, along with the management agents of the athletes have increasingly taken elite sport out of the control of politicians, governments and even the competitors themselves. The ability of governments to control these international sporting bodies and competitions becomes increasingly difficult as the former vie with one another to attract sporting spectacles to their country. The political and economic power and influence of many African and other third world nations are often significantly inferior to those of the large international sporting bodies.

The success of the major sporting extravagances such as the Olympic Games is regarded by many a result of the abilities of the IOC and its President rather than the host city; more a celebration of the Supra-national governing body of sport than a nation state and its political leaders. The hosting of such events is becoming increasingly a mere dream of most countries rather a realisable ambition. The cost for the majority is, or perhaps should be, well beyond the means of most national budgets. For those nations that continue to dream of hosting a major international sporting tournament, the inevitable need to turn to external funding agencies to finance such a project will once more, for many, re-kindle images of neo-colonialism and economic dependency.

The athletes themselves were once the ambassadors of their nations, but they too are often commodities in the sporting global economies. Many are extremely wealthy, international personalities, even away from the context of sport. But they are, nevertheless, subjected to market forces that require them to respond to the needs of the market place. This invariably means competing in events around the world, for many, particularly in athletics, operating out of Europe. Many African athletes and footballers are no longer based in their home countries where they would be available as role models for future generations of sports men and women. They are certainly less available to their political leaders to be used to further perhaps laudable political objectives, or personal less worthy goals. Interference by senior politicians and presidents of African nations in team selection, particularly the national football team, has been in the past, a common occurrence. The Cameroonian football team experienced such interference at the World Cup in 1990 and 1994. By the year 2000 such interference only brought embarrassment and ridicule. In February2000, following the apparent failure of the team from the Ivory Coast, the President incarcerated the team in a military camp near the capital. He seized their mobile phones and lambasted them for their poor performance. Somewhat frightened, the majority of the team was desperate to be released, have their phones returned and be able to return home and to their clubs far away in Europe. Their priorities lay elsewhere.

In the context of Africa, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, the success of elite sports men and women and national teams has thus become a potentially less valuable and valued tool in the political armoury of leaders of many of the countries of the region. If the political benefits to governments of most African countries of identifying with and supporting elite sport are less evident, what value is there for them in sport and physical education at grass roots level?

If one considers the development of sport and physical education for the masses in Kenya since independence, two very different images are evident. In the mid 1960s the government established a National Sports Council to advise government on the development of sport. By the late 80s the country had a Department of Sport and a regional infrastructure that was created to "implement and coordinate policies for Sport." Its role was designed to mirror that of any West European governmental organisation to foster and promote sport, with a clear political agenda. Physical education became a compulsory subject in schools in 1980 at the behest of President Kenyatta, with plans presented to prepare for the subject a national curriculum. Mass sport and physical education were no doubt designed to bring benefits to the state and its peoples, but also to be agents of the state to further a variety of political ambitions. Kenyan politicians were, again, no different in this respect than their contemporaries around the world. But even if the recipe for sport and physical education in Kenya was similar to that in many nation states, it was an imposed system that for a variety of reasons has been seriously compromised. The desire to provide future generations with enhanced opportunities and a better life have encouraged parental support for education, but physical education and sport in schools is often less valued as a potential distraction away from more essential elements of the curriculum. The government has also failed to act on its promises of support for both physical education in the schools and sport for the wider community. Sports facilities are universally poor and the supporting infrastructure inadequate.

The Moi International Stadium in Nairobi, once a symbol of the governments commitment to sport has, in part, become a symbol of neglect as it rapidly becomes, in part, a ruin. Sadly, as so often happens, mismanagement, corruption, political interference and indifference have often conspired to undermine sport and physical education. The successes in sport and physical education in Kenya could in part be seen as successes gained, despite, rather than because of the system. Examples are most evident in the Rift valley near the small town of Iten. St. Patricks Boys School and the nearby Singore Girls School have produced many of the countrys and the worlds finest athletes, Mike Boit being one of them! But the facilities for sport available at the schools are poor the girls school relies on a cow pasture to prepare its athletes who are soon to compete on the world stage.

Kenya is not alone in the struggle of the committed few to promote sport and physical education for the masses and the specific use and abuse of these particular activities by politicians does not alone account for their problems. The activities and their supporters are subjected to wider and more fundamental problems.

The great promise of the early years of independence has for many African countries evaporated as natural disasters, economic mismanagement, corruption and poor leadership have crippled their economies and political systems. The world media has regularly chronicled the demise of many of these nations. The United Nations and the World Bank have produced vast quantities of statistics to confirm the faltering nature of their economies and the plight of the people. In Zimbabwe and Kenya, both the Human Development Index (a compilation index that is a measure of life expectancy, literacy rates and education) and per capita GDP have declined significantly in the latter years of the 20th. Century. In Kenya the percentage GNP annual growth rate between 1975 and 1995 was 4.8, between 1990 and 1998 it had halved.

A similar percentage fall within the same time frame was evident in Zimbabwe. Foreign aid during the 1990s to these two countries fell dramatically. In Kenya it fell from $885.6 billion in 1992 to $473.9 billion in 1998. The fall in Zimbabwe was even more dramatic; from $791.7 billion in 1992 to $280.0 billion in 1998. The economic malaise that these countries are now experiencing is obviously far from unique across the continent. Many other African countries, such as Sierra Leone, Niger and Burkina Faso are among the poorest nations in the world.

It is evident in Kenya and Zimbabwe, a conclusion based on personal experience and knowledge, that much time and effort was once invested in sport and physical education. This situation has now patently changed. But given the seriousness of the economic condition of both these and many other African nations, can significant new investment in sport and physical education be morally justified? Yes, if part of a larger social package, but perhaps not as a priority. The message included in a report of the IOC in 1986 has now even more poignancy than ever. "Do we have the right to offer sport for all when we still do not have bread for all and work for all? Do we have the right to play and dance and to take seriously the measuring of our physical strength and the exercise of our physical skills so long as economic penury and illiteracy exists?"

From a political perspective, investment in sport and physical education for the masses is also not likely to engender much support when the social and economic infrastructure of society is being subjected to such pressure that is now evident across the continent. This is not to say that sport is no longer an obsession amongst millions of Africans. Football, in particular, still attracts its fanatical supporters, both as participants and also spectators. Certain matches continue to attract crowds of over 100,000. Ironically, the 150,000 mourners that attended the funeral of the 30 members of the Zambian national football squad in 1993 following their fatal air crash provides a testament to the popularity of the game in Africa.

But sport can only bring temporary respite and transient pleasure for a beleaguered society. A famous English athletics coach and sporting commentator, Ron Pickering, once suggested that in South Africa during its years of sporting isolation, "Normal sport could not exist in an abnormal society".

I would suggest that in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that has so much to offer, peopled by individuals of such a generous nature, sport is in danger of becoming increasingly marginal in the fight to survive. Western sport for much of the peoples of the region is not a priority. Education and employment inevitably and rightly rank higher. From a political perspective, winning sport is increasingly less valuable in a failing society. Politicians are less eager to step out into the sporting arena and, if they dare, they present an increasingly less credible image. The world of sport has changed dramatically in recent years and politicians have to take cognizance of this fact.