Why Swingeing Cuts And a Big Society do NOT go Together

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, delivered a rousing speech to Conservative party faithfuls at their annual conference when he called them to arms with 'Your country needs you', and emphasised the Big Society where everyone looks out for one another on a voluntary, cooperative and empathetic basis. All fine words indicating fine ideals and a desire to unite the nation in a time of impending austerity and sacrifice, but they are highly inappropriate to the current situation.

It means that Mr Cameron's vision will remain just that for some time because of common human factors that he and his team have not really taken into account. And the most hidden and destructive factor is FEAR. David Cameron would be better off appealing to people as individuals with whom he shares their concern and anxieties, while he is threatening to relieve them of their basic livelihoods in the dreaded cuts, rather than trying to force them to look outward at a time when that is not emotionally possible. When we are threatened, individually, it is a natural instinct to retreat and defend, not join with others, simply because everyone else becomes a potential scapegoat.

In any kind of economic or social upheaval, fear is the dominant factor, which is entirely understandable. If a family is worrying about losing their jobs, not getting enough benefits which are going to be slashed, about the economy being in recession and depriving them of opportunities, the last thing they will care about or wish to know about is someone else's problems. The reason why a Big Caring Society might work during war time but won't in economic downturns is because the two situations are vastly different.


Fighting a common enemy
War is caused by external forces, enemies of the state, who present a threat to every person within that society. It stands to reason that their very survival is at risk which will require each person to join forces to repel the enemy who could indiscriminately destroy them. No one is excluded. When there are economic problems, people do not care about the big picture because the concern moves from the macro (national) to the micro (the home) where the main priority is each family for itself. Instead of joining forces, people will be more concerned with who is getting more than they are, who is to blame for such problems and who should accept responsibility for their precarious situation. There will be no unity of approach or action under such conditions. Protecting one's position from erosion and further attack assumes priority while reason and common sense take a back seat because of that fear.

Economic downturns always carry blame and a need for scapegoats because jobs are not just things we do for money. They are also the essence of how we perceive ourselves in status, rank, responsibilities, sense of achievement, self-worth and identity. Any threat to all that is not conducive to unity and cooperation because people who are riddled with anxiety, with doubt and low confidence, will be ruled by fear of the future, and fear is a limiting emotion, not a constructive one.

Couple that fear with the stark fact that the government expects people to volunteer their time free of charge, that there will be no real money to motivate action, and one can kiss the Big Society goodbye! How are people worried about day to day issues supposed to bear the expenses themselves of doing the government's job for it? That's like pouring salt into an already open wound! For example, I am semi-retired and have volunteered in the past for whatever took my fancy, especially in empowering others. But I would think twice before helping with anything that would leave me anxious and out of pocket - worse off than I am. That would be rather foolish, especially if my income is steady and unchanging. Who makes up the shortfall?

Basic questions like that will be the kind asked by most families in Britain today. They will not be about anyone else because in times of economic crisis, thoughts are likely to turn to scrutiny of the role of the better-off in society, the unequal gaps between communities and ultimately to the government. Playing one big happy family in a Big Society would be the last thing on their minds while they are fretting and cogitating about their fate.

I think Mr Cameron needs to go back to the drawing board for this one, or simply leave it until there are clear signs of recovery. Perhaps then the idea of joining hands together in celebration of renewed good fortune might actually lead to the Big Society he so desperately seeks. It really is a question of timing than anything else in getting what we desire and the Big Society is an idea whose time has, clearly, not yet come.

Is there really such a thing as 'The Truth'?

Some years ago, I noted in my book, Managing the Diversity Maze, that: "’Truth’ is governed by privilege. It always looks so right when one has the power to support it". Thus ‘the truth’ of “Black people, women and others who suffer under such inequalities will seldom share anything with the ‘truth’ of the exploiters because they are both coming at that singular ‘truth’ from two different positions of privilege: one group has it and the other has not. That is what keeps equality from ever becoming a reality and cements its unequal foundations, regardless of the superficial flurry of activity and proliferation of fine words to prove otherwise.”

One man gave a stark demonstration of that comment at the time: Rudy Giuliani, the one time Mayor of New York and recent presidential hopeful. Rudy went from sinner to virtual saint with the 9/11 tragedy. In 2002, Rudy was riding high. He was dubbed the Mayor of the World by the New York Times magazine which made him its Person of the Year. And, in my opinion, if anyone truly deserved such an accolade, it was the Mayor of New York. He could not have been more of a father to his citizens when they needed him most, nor could he have been more caring and compassionate to shocked New Yorkers blasted by the carnage. Yet Rudy is living proof of the power of perception regarding the transient and questionable nature of 'truth'.

As I watched him tirelessly leading the city throughout September and beyond, I was extremely inspired by his unselfishness, humility, obvious compassion and quiet approachability. The cold-hearted mayor I had heard about up to a few months before seemed many miles away, bearing little relation to the man who now commanded so much respect and genuine authority, representing two completely different versions of ‘the truth’ according to one’s perception, expectation and frame of reference.

In fact, many other Black people in New York would have had some trouble adjusting their lens to double check that this new saintly figure was the same mayor who presided over three particularly brutal incidents and even backed his policemen in doing two of them too.


Zero Tolerance of Crime
According to the Times magazine, in 1997 Abner Louima, a Haitian man, was sodomised with a mop handle by policemen in a Brooklyn-precinct bathroom. Two years later, an unarmed street pedlar named Amadou Diallo was killed when police in the Bronx fired 41 shots at him in a dark lobby. In 2000, barely 18 months before 9/11, “an unarmed security guard named Patrick Dorismond, who had been trying to hail a cab outside a midtown bar, was shot to death after a scuffle with undercover cops”. “Giuliani denounced the policemen who brutalised Louima but defiantly backed the ones who killed Diallo and Dorismond.” In their cases the juries actually cleared the policemen of wrong doing. Giuliani had declared zero tolerance on crime and would not let a little matter of skin colour block his objective, which gave a licence to others to rob African Americans of their rights and even their lives.

Because of his obstinate and his seemingly cold-hearted stance against the unarmed victims, the man who was to “save New York city” saw his popularity ratings plummet to new lows. But therein lies the capacity of power to change perception of what constitutes ‘the truth’.

With the support of the majority White community behind the law enforcers, crime assumed a particular colour. Giuliani had to show how a tough mayor should act towards those who were perceived to be the most troublesome, especially if they were easily identifiable. According to the magazine, “New York City was getting better, but the mayor seemed to be getting worse”. It was easy for him to feel unassailable. Inflated by his own idea of ‘the truth’, he seemed uncaring as to the consequences of it.

In mitigation, he told the reporter, “People didn’t elect me to be a conciliator. If they just wanted a nice guy they would have stayed with Dinkins” (the former mayor). “They wanted someone who was going to change this place. How do you expect me to change if I don’t fight with somebody?” he asked. “You don’t change ingrained human behaviour without confrontation, turmoil and anger.”

And this statement of his truth is absolutely right. Except, if it came from a Black male, it would have been regarded as somewhat dangerous; disturbing enough to merit the attentions of the security forces who would have questioned his intent and been wary of his actions. But he is White, which carries its own might, and that’s all right. He has both the colour and the power to give credibility and life to his version of ‘the truth’. A Black male talking about ‘confrontation and anger’ had better watch his back! There would be no ’truth’ in that.





Confrontation and challenge
But, I am one of those who agreed with that simple statement because it really was ‘the truth’. From the day I took on this thankless task of changing hearts and minds, I have felt that unmoving attitudes cannot be changed with just fine words and flowers. One has to be armed with something stronger: like 'confrontation, turmoil and anger'.

Change always starts with confrontation and challenge: confronting the self to change personal perceptions; confronting others as well as the issues no one wishes to acknowledge, or which everyone pretends do not matter. To confront and challenge basic injustice and discrimination in order to get at this elusive 'truth'.

Once there is confrontation there is turmoil. Any form of negative challenge disturbs the status quo and unleashes the worst anxieties within us. Anger swiftly follows, both from resentment at being challenged and from frustration on the part of the challenger at the lack of change or the slowness of it. However, once confrontation begins, it is like a pandora’s box which either generates argument and debate or unleashes a riot of indignant emotions and actions.

In the light of my book, Managing the Diversity Maze, Rudy Giuliani’s simple statement answered a lot of questions about my own ‘truths’ and objectives. This book certainly confronts the issues head on, starting from the Establishment to the individual, and a good deal of turmoil has followed in the ensuing reality check. But then, I have never shirked from the task! People who benefit from the status quo will seldom ever change unless it continues to reward them in some significant way.

I admire Rudy Giuliani a great deal now because some time in 2000 he had the humility to question his version of 'the truth’ regarding one section of the community and also the courage to face up to the negativity of the fact. With the two brutal murders fresh in his mind, he pledged his remaining time in office to “breaking down some of the barriers” he felt he had placed between himself and visible minority communities. “I don’t know exactly how you do that,” he said, “but I am going to try very hard.” He did succeed in some measure and reached his zenith with 9/11 because he began to confront his version of ‘the truth’, not a comfortable thing to do, but a necessary one in dealing with difference. In these awful tragic moments, the meaning of life assumes a clarity over questionable 'truths' which is almost blinding.

Next time one is hell bent on seeking 'the truth' as one sees it, one needs to remind one's self that personal perceptions and personal power dictate individual truths. That the nearest thing to a universal 'truth' happens only when majority perceptions merge in agreement on the same versions of 'the truth'. But even then, one has to be careful to ensure that this 'truth' is not being ruled by vested interest, is not being stifled by unbending traditions, is not holding commonsense to ransom, is not being used to bolster injustice and is not being held hostage to the latest fad for some select group.

In other words, in our search for the truth, we will always meet some road blocks or false versions of it. The test is to tease out which truth we are prepared to hang on to and defend, in the face of the consequences for ourselves and others.

Is Saying 'Black Power' a Racist Statement?

Q. "Recently, in New York City, a transit worker put a 'Black Power' sign up in his booth at the train station. He was asked to take it down by a White man. When he refused the man took a picture of it and then called the media which jumped on it. I have very mixed feelings about this but I want to hear what you think first. Do you think posting a 'Black Power' sign on Martin Luther King Day denotes racism? I can't speak for anywhere else but the phrase 'Black Power' in New York was developed by us for us.  It had nothing to do with putting White people or anyone else down."


A. The key question here is: Would you feel happy and comfortable with someone who suddenly puts up a poster saying 'White Power'? If you wouldn't, then it is about mutual respect. Empowering phrases like 'Black Power' served a purpose IN THEIR OWN TIME. The problem with many Black people who might feel impotent about their life and progress is that they are not moving on in life, not evolving from one time or experience to another. They feel they have little to be joyful about so they still use tired old slogans, which exclude others; still live in the past and are seeking scapegoats for their situation, when times have moved on. They put emphasis on words, when something more tangible is needed to improve their life and perspective. We need to be more inclusive of others now, to stop the blame and take responsibility for ourselves. That's the only way to self-empowerment and true power. As to the sign being put up on Martin Luther King Day, it does the great man a disservice. Dr King did not preach division, or simply extolling ourselves. Far from it, he taught unity and co-existing together. Genuine equality, that was his dream. Not one person above another.

We cannot be demanding respect if we give none. We cannot want to be treated fairly if we are still being exclusive of others and unfair to them purely because of their colour. At the heart of respect is sensitivity. If we have none towards the feelings of others, how can we genuinely expect our sensitivities to be respected and appreciated? We do not gain self-esteem and power by putting others down, otherwise we too are dragged down by it. That phrase might have suited the past when we wished to make a point to racists and to encourage our self-belief in some awful situations. But it is quite inappropriate now, especially if we have White friends and colleagues and want to build bridges.

You are right that 'Black Power' emerged initially, from a sea of racism, as a great motivator to remind us of our talent and potential, but it is increasingly being used as a kind of superior one-upmanship against White peers. My question is, why do we STILL need to keep saying it? Aren't we convinced yet of our own power and worth? Power is subtle and pervasive. If we have to point it out, we haven't got it! Do we feel so inferior to others that we have to keep reminding ourself how 'powerful' we are, when no other culture behaves in that way? They simply get on with it and prove their worth in their creativity, innovation and their wealth. Meanwhile, we merely keep shouting words, yet living double standards in our behaviour. We are still calling each other 'niggas', our women 'hoes' and 'bitches, still using violence against one another at every turn, still being a nation of single mothers while our children are deprived of balanced parentage, and too many of our men are incarcerated in prison instead of educating themselves to take advantage of their revolutionary world and its opportunities.

Is that all the 'power' we can actually muster as a community?


Engaging in Positive Action
We develop esteem and genuine power through SELF-LOVE, high personal standards and kindness and compassion towards others. When we no longer feel the need to shout 'Black Power', to feel superior or treat others in a mean way to uplift ourself, we will be truly powerful. No one will have to tell us then. That's when we would have matured and evolved because we would have finally laid down the past and freed ourselves from its limiting and caustic effects.

We need to stop talking and start doing. Start engaging one another in positive action, in love instead of hate, because words are pointless without the actions to match. Then I might begin to believe that, collectively, we truly have 'Black Power'. We will not only be saying it then, but the quality of our life, the achievements within it, and the love we give out will be ample evidence of it. Oprah Winfrey has "Black Power" and it is not only about her money. Her influence is pervasive across American life - the universal reference point for making things happen. She makes people's careers just by engaging them. I regard myself as a very powerful Black woman too because I love who I am, I have no wish to be anyone else and am neither above nor beneath anyone. Being successful in my own small way, there is no place for blame in my vocabulary, only love. I sincerely believe I can make a difference to the lives of others, every single day, even with a simple smile. I don't need to shout about having 'Black Power'. I just prefer to demonstrate it in my actions. When you believe it, it becomes a natural part of your life. There is nothing further to prove, except to utilise the opportunities, the rewards and the enormous potential available.

In answer to your question, in my opinion, 'Black Power', would be deemed as racist now because it implies superiority over other colours and cultures. Regardless of its value to Black people, if a White person pointedly said similar in our presence, we would be offended. That does not improve understanding and tolerance or bring us any closer together. The last words go to Dr. King:

"Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it....Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend."

Will the Coalition be Reforming the British Honours System?

Now that the new Coalition government seems to be sweeping the country with their reforms of one kind or another, will they also be tackling the last vestige of white supremacy while they are at it? The last insult to a multicultural society?

Last June, the usual crop of public honours recipients was announced in London. The Queen's Birthday and New Years' Honours Lists "reflect and pay tribute to outstanding achievement and service right across the community" says the blurb, but often one wonders which community it's dealing with because the people who do receive the very top honours are seldom the ones who would be recognised by the general community.

The awards system, which still carries the obnoxious tag of 'Empire', and glory in its colonial legacy and traditions, is still alive and well when it should have been pensioned off years ago. With whiffs of honours for sale, it is about time this particular heritage is retired gracefully and something more reflective of modern society and true merit introduced in its place. Britain prides itself on its equal opportunities and diverse multicultural society, yet, just casting a glance at the Knights and Dames honours, as in every past year, men outnumber women by nearly 3 to 1 and very few minorities achieve the very highest ranks like Commanders of Knights. From the spread of honours, one can assume that men are more deserving than women and Whites more deserving than Blacks. Nothing that has lasted so many years can still serve a different society today in an efficient way, and in the same form, when we have advanced in amazing ways and with constantly changing perspectives.

I mean, a lady running her business successfully for over 50 years gets a mere OBE. Yet still active in her nineties! What on earth does she have to do to get the CBE or Damehood? Another 50 years?

I would scrap this outdated and exclusive honours system if I were David Cameron. It is getting really tired and irrelevant now in the way they are still awarded on class lines and still refer to that great 'Empire' which has an invisible location to the British public. Where exactly do we find this British Empire? Perhaps if we stopped hanging on to the past and looked to our future we would be even greater than before. To award a member of a minority group with a reminder of a discriminatory, racist and repressive colonial regime is disrespectful and offensive in this global age.

We are now desperate for an inclusive MODERN awards system that one does not have to pay money for, which will apply right across the board to everyone in our multicultural society; one which will reflect the national pride we should feel for Britain TODAY, not yesterday. An award system to help bind the country together as one in a spirit of achievement and togetherness, not keep people artificially apart and stuck in yesteryear! Is that the best we can do now to recognise our people?

These awards are an anachronism in today's technological 21st century world. The quicker that is realised and acted upon, the more the credibility of the British honours system will be restored and the more reflective of its multicultural society it will gradually become.

Why I LOVE my new Prime Minister, David Cameron!

On the 6th of May, 2010, when the British general election results were announced, I was secretly pleased that the Conservatives had not received enough votes to form a government, while being keenly disappointed that the LibDems had actually lost seats. I had hoped that they would have had a massive increase in their seats in Parliament due to what the polls had been saying before the election. I was also torn between whom their leader, Nick Clegg, should support to form a coalition, as Labour seemed a more natural choice of partner compared to the Conservatives, whom I've always disliked, but I also wanted a fresh team after the 13 years Labour had already enjoyed.

In the event, the Conservatives rightfully won out over Labour, especially as they had the most seats and David Cameron became Prime Minister. The country waited with bated breath for the new political coalition to get off the ground, while dire predictions of its imminent demise frequently peppered the air! I preferred to wait and see, with some scepticism, especially after the shock of seeing how the coalition was actually arranged, who actually benefited from it, and the direction it was to take. Until now.

This week, the United Kingdom, this great country, found its international voice again, no longer muted by fear, factions or the folly of an unjust war. No more diplomatic niceties or flim-flam. It gave a very loud and clear message to the world that Britain - the national corporation - was back in business again, and firmly on the side of justice, no matter in what quarter, and I felt extremely proud to be British. On his trip to Turkey, Mr Cameron left no one in any doubt about the smelling carcass of a stagnant Middle East situation. He accused Israel of turning the Gaza strip into an "open prison camp" by blockading vital supplies to the area and then warned that "Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp". Indeed.

That was music to my ears because anyone who could actually condone what has been happening in Gaza, to turn their back on a people who are suffering deliberately through the insensitive and cruel efforts of another country, cannot have much humanity in them. Such action has been plainly wrong, no matter the reason for it, and was crying out for some real leadership on the issue. It took guts to ignore the diplomatic niceties of hypocrites and say it like it is, and I applaud him for it. No, not just applaud him. I love the guy's sincerity and courage in setting a new marker on international behaviour. He's got it spot on in view of the lawlessness that seemed to have overtaken our world, especially in view of some of Israel's recent cavalier action.


Building a New Perspective
As I wrote in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon (12 Lessons in Life): "We do not overcome evil by becoming evil ourselves. In that awful moment of madness, we lose our self-respect and our integrity, falling from the moral high ground of justice to land with a thud on the same low level of injustice perpetrated by our oppressors."

By saying a simple truth, which our American allies, through their backing of Israel seem unable to say, David Cameron can help everyone to build on a new perspective of justice without fear, and start a real healing process in this fractured situation. But that wasn't all.

Yesterday, in view of the leaks about Afghanistan, Cameron went to India and again spoke out about another thorny issue: the two-faced nature of Pakistan's diplomacy regarding terrorism, telling them that they cannot play it both sides and then expect the right results. He said they were "promoting the export of terror" and it was intolerable for that country to "look both ways" in view of all the atrocities associated with terrorism. Sensible words from a sensible leader!

In the current global economic climate, strong leadership is necessary to take us out of the downturn and into a better period of growth and stability. I have always admired Cameron himself ever since he took over as opposition leader, though not his party. I felt the Tories were usually for big business and not exactly welcoming of minorities! I used to wish he was leading Labour or the LibDems, so I had mixed feelings with the election results. Today I feel awfully proud to have a Prime Minister who seems unafraid to tackle the real issues and to say it like it is. That means a lot to me because achieving real justice is never easy. It is about compassion, trust and sacrifice, hence why it is always easier to blow with the wind than to stand up for one's beliefs.

The BBC's headline on the India trip said "Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers". Well, that's great news. Time for some feathers to be ruffled, or even plucked, because the current status quo is not yielding much by way of solutions.

The Telegraph lauded Cameron's visit with President Obama saying how the Conservatives and coalition government should be proud of him and his performance, as he was clearly the stronger leader in the exchanges. I say we should all be very proud of him because, at last, we have a real Prime Minister who is not afraid of taking the initiative, making decisions, even tough ones, or speaking out. A true leader in every sense of the word. Watch the mood of the country now changes from uncertainty to confidence. With such a transparent Prime Minister, it can only lead to more trust and self-belief.

Suddenly the future looks very bright! :o)

(Tonight the BBC is airing a programme "5 Days That Changed Britain" on BBC 2 at 2100 GMT, regarding the general election and the frenzied activity to form a coalition after the results became known. It should be very interesting viewing.)

Telegraph: A new foreign policy is taking shape under David Cameron but is it Tory or Lib Dem?
(A steely determination can be detected in the Coalition's attitude, argues Benedict Brogan.)

Five Lessons From The 2010 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA 2010 World Cup has ended on a high with lots of credits to the host, South Africa. The party is over and the clearing up has now begun, along with the reflection on what happened, remorse by the 'losers', regret on what could have been and new resolve for the future. The next four years will be one of soul searching and debate by all the world's teams as to how they can do better.

However, there seems to be five major lessons to be taken from the tournament and, in order of importance, they are:

1. The TEAM is the essence of winning anything, not the individual.
Long before the World Cup began we heard how great players like Ronaldo(Portugal), Rooney(England), Messi(Argentina) and Kaka (Brazil) would shine in the competition. We would be exposed to their genius and marvel at it. They would inspire the rest of their teams to victory. Like hell. They were all sent packing by virtual unknowns such as Gyan (Ghana), Klose (Germany) and Andres Iniesta(Spain). What was significant about these winning players was their complete acceptance that the team mattered much more than the individual and they all supported each other. Each was but one player in it, no matter how they individually performed.

For example, Cesc Fabregas (Spain) set up the winning goal that Andres Iniesta crashed into the net. Then he quickly removed his shirt to show the memory of a player who should have been with them but had died of a heart attack in August 2009 - Daniel Jarque. At that supreme moment of triumph, the team did not forget one of their own and the simple inscription on the t-shirt ("Dani Jarque, always with us") ensured that the dead team member shared in that amazing moment too. A greater team spirit one could not have witnessed. Since Spain's victory, as before it, the focus has been on the whole team, not just the guy who scored. He merely completed the hard work and effort of his other teammates. Iniesta did not do it all by himself. He just happened to have the skill for making that goal just as his teammates exhibited their skills in other aspects of the game. When there is too much emhpasis on any one team player it demoralises the others who are likely to believe that their skills are not appreciated, which then affect team cohesion, communication and performance.

2. With the increasing use of technology and a growing global audience, the World Cup competition, as we knew it, is over
The 2010 World Cup was on a different level and scale from what it used to be when it was dominated by the usual South American and European teams. The World Cup has grown so big, with so much potential for national identification and promotion, it is no longer just the pinnacle of a popular game but a real source of national pride. Every country will now want a piece of that global action and they will be fighting very hard to get it. It means that the usual teams (like England, Brazil, Argentina etc) who would have expected to head for the finals almost automatically will now have a hard battle on their hands as countries like the USA, Ghana, Spain and Netherlands (those who have been in the background) begin fighting for centre-stage. Making it to the quarter-final, let alone the final, will be a very hard task for some teams in the future, as competition for the 32 coveted spots in the World Cup finals begins in earnest.


3. Good football will always win out
It was clear that Spain and the Netherlands had different playing styles. For the Netherlands it was a more aggressive approach, stopping the Spanish progression by fair means or foul, while for the Spaniards the aim was to get that goal through a natural rhythm of playing and passing. The Dutch style led to a lot of fouls, yellow cards, a sending off, and the odd vicious encounter while the Spaniards took home the prize with their persistent and professional play. Winning or losing at this level of the sport should be done with dignity and mutual respect. Not conducted like a market brawl, because only one team can ever win.

4. Technology is needed for ensuring that any decision relating to a goal is the right one
England was disallowed a perfectly good goal at a crucial point in their game. Who knows what might have happened if they had drawn level with Germany? One cannot underestimate the motivating power of coming from behind to level the stakes. A goal is the ultimate objective of football. It cannot be left to chance anymore because referees are not supremos. They are fallible human beings. Time for technology to do its job where goals are concerned. One cannot put total emphasis on getting goals in this competition then pretend that a goal doesn't really matter at crucial moments of the game.

5. Anything is possible when we have self-belief and feel ready for it
For the past six years since South Africa was awarded the World Cup games to host, the army of naysayers has been casting the most dire predictions about the outcome: the stadia wouldn't be ready, violent crime would be rife, the public wouldn't support the games, Africa wasn't ready for staging the games...and so on. Today South Africa can boast hosting one of the most successful games of all time. In fact, attendance at all the matches totalled 3.15 millions, second only to the American-held World Cup of 1994 which had 3.58 millions; the vuvuzela which is now worldwide was introduced; the welcome of visitors was second to none and the sheer scale of the organisation and the professionalism was breathtaking to see. South Africans today can feel proud of themselves having asserted the country globally as a future venue for any event, which can only help them economically in the long run, while also affecting the perception of the continent as a whole.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup was an impressive display of gamesmanship, a fine example of sports at its best; a unifier of countries and a showcase for individual and team potential, not to mention the economic benefits it now affords at all levels of organisation. Long may it continue.



Photos courtesy of FIFA.com

English Football Debate (2): How the British media is strangling football talent with their burden of expectations and reporting extremes

(huffingtonpress.com)

On Tuesday morning the English football team returned from the FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Disillusioned, exhausted and dejected, they came face to face with a barrage of headlines about their failures and disasters, not least one that said "The Flops Come Home". Today, the men are still followed on their deserved holiday with stories screeching how The Flops are taking holidays while the fans are still unhappy. While the players rightly get on with their lives, acknowledging that they played a match and it's over, and it's time to look towards the next one, some sections of the British media are still bashing them, still bleating and whimpering, taking football out of all proportion to its role in our lives.

The British media is responsible for a lot that has happened in South Africa and continues to happen in our sports. They love to raise players to the heights of demi-gods when it suits their purposes, and especially when those players are performing well, then waste little time in knocking them back down to the ground with vitriolic content, all in the drive to sell papers. They love to hype the team up before a match, burdening them with unrealistic expectations, then vilifying them after any bad performance - from one extreme to the other. That is very bad psychologically and emotionally for the players.

Playing any kind of game is an ongoing activity, a continual 'war' with many battles. In the bid to develop the best team, some battles will be lost, just as many will be won. World Cup football is not a one-off performance where the players won't be doing anything after that. There are tons more competitions to come. It means that no matter what the team is participating in, the media need to bear that crucial fact in mind. When they run players down after every match, how does that affect them? How does that restore their confidence, build their morale and instill a winners' mindset to do even better next time? After all, if one keeps constantly whacking a goose that lays golden eggs because the goose is not laying them quickly enough, soon there will be a dead goose and no eggs at all!

The country those players represent is also their 'family'. When our family, the closest to us, rejects us too, what then? Whom do we have on our side? To whom can we turn? Would we really wish to represent that family again? If our team loses abroad, especially on the world stage, no one can underestimate just how much loss of pride, prestige and reputation they immediately suffer. To then have their own country rejecting them too in that vitriolic way is not a winning formula for the future. It will simply lead to more of the same. There is a fundamental reason for that.


(Before the World Cup, the Sun touts England's perceived 'easy' time with the draw they have had.)

The Results of Negative Attacks
When we knock players every time they lose, instead of acknowledging what they have achieved up to that point, we instill shame and fear inside of them: fear of taking risks, fear of the consequences of their actions and fear of failure. Yet failure and success are two sides of the same coin. People fail only when the fear of failure has taken them over and they have lost faith in their ability to win. The more they are bashed for those failures is the less self-belief they have, the more difficult it is for them to believe they have the talent to win and the worse they perform when it matters. Fear destroys, it doesn't build. Yet the players need failures to learn. They need to take risks and they need mistakes to improve their art. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the trouncing by Germany will probably do far more to hone the team's skills and potential than anything else they have encountered. That's why Fabio Capello was absolutely right when he stressed business as usual and started looking forward to the future.

Participating in the FIFA World Cup is not an automatic right. It is a hard fought competitive event which is getting more difficult each year as more and more countries vie for the prestige and media glory of being involved in it. For the record, since 1950 when England began to enter the World Cup, the team has participated in 13 of the 16 possible events, winning one of them and reaching the quarter-finals in another six. That means they have done extremely well 81% of the time. That doesn't sound like losers to me! Only three occasions did they not qualify.

More important, England has a competition all time rank of being No. 5 of the 76 countries which have qualified for the World Cup down the years. That means only Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina rank above them. They are also No. 8 in the whole world, of all the 202 countries who play the sport. Those high rankings do not suggest 'flops', 'awful' 'rubbish' players. They suggest a team that has continuously delivered high standards of football, albeit erratically, and have always performed at a level only dreamed of by most of their opponents. English football is the envy of the world, especially the Premier League which attracts foreign managers like bees to honey.

Time to stop insulting our boys and encourage them instead. To accept that we are nurturing a winning team, not just a team to win one-off matches; accept that defeat and success have to be taken in stride in order for the team to be ready psychologically to fight another day, get over it and move on. Our life is dictated by our thought processes. When we dwell on failure, instead of moving briskly on, that is all we get - more failure. We cannot get glory and achievement out of negative thoughts and actions. We have to think like winners, act like winners and be treated like winners.

Germany's Thomas Mueller, who scored two goals against England, made the best comment so far. He said England needed younger hungrier players "prepared to make sacrifices". The team had "too many chiefs and not enough indians". That is a very important point the team managers need to consider. But when the team loses, the press should acknowledge it, and perhaps feel sad for it. But, above all, remind the team where they are coming from and where they still could reach, and get behind their efforts. That is the true role of a sensible media. Otherwise the labels the media are currently so willing to pin on to the players could all become horrible self fulfilling prophecies!

English football Debate (1): Did you say "the beautiful game"? When a perfectly valid goal is disallowed, the game is downright ugly.

The World Cup 2010 football game between England and Germany, where a very able English team was massacred 1:4 on a hot June day, will be long remembered for a host of reasons, not least that it could lead to radical changes both in perspectives in Britain and in FIFA playing procedures.

People involved in football (players, managers, referees, commentators and officials, in particular) love to extol the virtues of the sport as 'the beautiful game". Officials maintain that mistakes made by the referees in their adjudications are as much part and parcel of the appeal of the game as the game itself, hence why video replays have been resisted in settling questionable judgements. One is inclined to agree with that perception of overlooking referee fallibility, with so many aspects of the game to judge during any match, except in one major respect: when it comes to goals.

A goal is not just an accidental part of a game. It is the raison d'etre, the lynchpin, the whole point of football. Nothing else matters in the game. Without a goal one cannot win. Thus every single action of the players, no matter how artistic, skilful, dramatic or attractive to watch, has only ONE objective in mind: to ultimately score a goal and outdo their opponent. Fortunes rise and fall on a player's ability to bring that goal to fruition, or to prevent it from happening, regardless of his role on the field. Players themselves are paid huge sums in transfer fees based on their reputation for getting, or preventing, those goals. To have a crucial international match in the most important tournament, where the stakes are extremely high for participating countries - financially and patriotically - and then wilfully ignore a bad decision around a perfectly good goal is crass to the extreme, and makes the game rather bitter for those on the receiving end of that judgement.


The Power of Scoring a Goal
Those who say that Germany would have won anyway, which makes the disallowed goal of little consequence, know very little about emotional health. We are ruled by emotions, no matter how rational we might try to be. The higher the stakes the more emotional we become. I would go as far as saying that England might have won the game, or even taken it to penalties, if that goal was allowed, not because I am British too, but because of something else entirely: the power of any scored goal to lift players' spirits, to immediately increase morale, to motivate them even further, to reinforce faith in their abilities and to affirm what is possible.

Had England been allowed that goal at that most crucial point in the game when they had just started their fightback, a goal that would have equalised the score with Germany, we would have seen a different game from the players. The minute it was disallowed, their spirits took a nosedive and, play as they might, their subconscious resentment at their perceived injustice got in the way of their craft. They simply lost their motivation, no matter how much they tried to get back into the game - an entirely natural and unfortunate reaction when we are hit with the enormity of an action we feel impotent to affect. It is quite a different emotional feeling of NOT scoring at all than to score a goal which is not allowed. The first feeling is one of frustration at being thwarted in one's efforts to score while the second is one of injustice. Two completely different emotions.



The concept of justice in any form is very important to the human psyche. It is as old as time itself, and sought after in every aspect of our lives. One does not mind being frustrated in one's efforts through not scoring. Demoralising, yes, but not earth shattering. One knows one can always do better; that the onus is on the person to improve their act. Not so with a sense of injustice. That takes the responsibility from the personal level to a social one, involving a more powerful third party. Unless justice is perceived to be received it leaves feelings of gross impotence, victimhood and personal inadequacy. When it also happens on the world stage, in front of millions of people, the effects can be devastating because they are magnified beyond measure.

It is no coincidence that Mexico also lost their game with Argentina, being beaten 3:1, when both teams were 0-0 approaching full time. Once the referee allowed a clear offside goal in favour of Argentina, it would have been downhill all the way for the Mexicans in motivation, morale and a feeling of injustice.

In fact, it would have been better had England not scored that goal at all because they would have had to concede to themselves that they were crap on the day; that the Germans were the better team. But so long as that goal was disallowed, that doubt will always remain as to what the real result would have been. The Germans were certainly on form, but anyone would look even more masterful against a demoralised side silently grieving over a perceived injustice.

It is nonsense to have video replays in commentaries which are not allowed to influence a clear error in judgement, especially when everyone can see the glaring faux pax. That disallowed goal has gone viral on the Internet, casting a very long shadow over the whole tournament, especially when refereeing, in general, had improved, and everything was going so well. The president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, who has stubbornly resisted any use of technology in matches, has apologised for referee errors (saying he 'deplored' seeing those mistakes on the replays) and promised to reopen the debate on using technology in the future, though for disputed goals only.

Well, if he wants the game of football to remain 'beautiful', and credible, technology is now an urgent imperative, because there is nothing beautiful at all about downright injustice. In fact, it leaves only nasty memories and is really rather ugly.