I am writing this in the King Shaka International Airport in Durban where I am about to trade the sea breezes and fine sandy beaches for Nelspruit, the gateway to Kruger Park, where I will attend the Cote d’Ivoire-North Korea game in hopes of seeing Didier Drogba and company bury the North Koreans in goals.
One of the stunning aspects of this World Cup is how all-consuming it has become for South Africa. As I have written here before, in South Africa, everything is about politics, even (especially?) that which is not. The World Cup has become the perfect testing point for that assertion.
What is truly fascinating is how virtually all stories are viewed through the lens of this month’s tournament, even above and beyond what one would expect anywhere. Seemingly every news story places whatever the story covers in the context of the Cup. Every news story either has a World Cup angle or works from a (sometimes tortured, or at least tortuous) football metaphor. The business sections are full of stories about how the Cup is helping the economy, will help the economy, won’t help the economy, and so forth. All stories about crime: filtered through the narrative of the World Cup. Stories about politics and politicians occur within the framework of ongoing events. It really is remarkable and in so many ways embodies the potjiekos (stew) that is the multiple intersections of South African politics, society, and sport.
Even the sports pages are not immune to this trend. One article that I read (sorry — no link) made an interesting case, which goes as follows: The English tend to by hypercritical of their football team and their politicians. South Africans tend to go easy on their football team and their politicians. Now I disagree with the second part of this assertion entirely. But the point is not the substance of the comparison, but rather that it is being made. And the columnists argument is quite simple: When it comes to politicians, the South Africans could take a lesson from the English. But when it comes to their football team, perhaps the English could learn a little something from South Africans. This is just one example of dozens every day in which these sorts of comparisons are being drawn.
South Africa’s politicians are basking in the reflected glory of what seems to be a fairly stunning success story with the Cup (yes, of course there have been some problems, usually isolated, often the fault not of South Africa but rather of FIFA — ticketing, for example, is FIFA’s purview). Whether this represents simply the natural order of things, is a diversionary tactic, or is well deserved remains to be seen. But when the lead stories and the bulk of coverage on the tv news and in the print media focuses on the World Cup, politicians can either slide below the radar or else can use the World Cup to promote their preferred image. This serves those politicians well even if it does not necessarily serve politics.
Yesterday, after the stunning US victory over Algeria, I was one of several Americans interviewed by SABC2. (I have no idea of or how often it aired). Talk about serving the preferred narrative: Most of us were asked something along the lines of: “How has your experience been.” Most answers came down to something along the lines of “Awesome!” I was able to talk about coming to South Africa for fifteen or so years, and how the World Cup has worked so well for South Africa’s nation building. Let’s face it: We couldn’t have served the country’s desired image better had we been paid. That does not make what we said untrue — I think it was manifestly true. This has been a great World Cup, a great experience, and tens of thousands of visitors have shared in this experience. But it still reveals the synergy (while dissipating some of the usually necessary tensions) between the role of media, the desires of fans, the goals of politicians, and the larger World Cup meta-narrative.
