• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

‘ SACOS, inundated with calls requesting clarification on a matter of principle - could players playing in non-racial sports organisations (e.g. Soccer) play in any other code which has a racial content - issued the following statement: "Any person, whether he is a player, an administrator or a spectator, committed to the non-racial principle in sport, shall not participate in or be associated with any other codes of sport which practice, perpetuate or condone racialism or multi-nationalism. Players and/or administrators disregarding the. essence of this principle shall be guilty of practising double-standards, and cannot, therefore, be members of any organisation affiliated to SACOS." The policy statement was endorsed at a general meeting held in June 1977 on a motion by Mr Abe Adams and the late Mr George Singh. The release of this statement was necessary and created a clear dividing line between racist and non-racial sport. At a meeting held on 1st September 1979 the late Mr D Abbass motivated that "people who serve on racial bodies cannot be part of SACOS". This was sup­ ported by Mr R Feldman. A subsequent resolution at the same meeting moved by Sheikh Booley and Mr C Walker read; "No member of SACOS shall in any way condone, encourage, foster or advo­ cate racialism or discrimination in any form and no individual associated with SACOS or its members shall in any way condone, encourage, foster or advo­ cate racialism or discrimination in any way whatsoever, and for the purposes of this clause, the participation in, association with or support of all forms of government bodies designed to entrench and/or promote the separateness of people via bodies such as the "Coloured Persons Representative Council, The South African Indian Council, Local Affairs Committees, Community Councils, Management Committees and the like", or any successors thereto, shall be deemed to condone or encourage or foster or advocate racialism and dis­ crimination." was adopted on 1st September 1979. These two resolutions formed the cornerstone of subsequent SACOS policy which was motivated by affiliates at various SACOS meetings. At all times, resolutions were adopted with the view to advancing the non-racial sport strug­ gle and not the policies of any given political tendency. Many other incidents have been used to portray an aligned position for the or­ ganisation or to demonstrate preference for one political tendency or another or to show that the organisation is hostile to any given tendency. The 1983 SACOSPORT and Liberation Conference held concurrently in CaP Town with the launch of the United Democratic Front is but another exampj[ Yet, on numerous occasions it had been explained that the decision to hC' the Conference during August 1983 was taken early May after it was announc^ that Dr Craven’s S A Rugby Board was holding an international propagano press conference at the Arthur Seat Hotel. The SACOS Conference was he'' to coincide with the arrival of press reporters from all over the world and it felt that maximum benefit for the cause of non-racial sport would be derive* from the international exposure. Similarly, it might well be that the organisel^ of the UDF launch felt that the presence of the international media in the countf over that weekend would serve to publicise the organisation. SACOS at stage objected to the holding of the two meetings over the same period of tim^ In hindsight, it may well have been a mistake not to send emissaries to the meeting on Saturday August 23, 1983. That decision was taken not by an dividual or the Executive but by the full conference at which all SACOS affiliate^ were present because of the pressure of time. On the other hand, changes in existing policies are condemned and used show that SACOS is pandering to the wishes of minority sectors of the op pressed community or those who can afford the luxuries granted by conceS' sions to State laws. A case in point is the decision to change the resolution oi' the use of University campus facilities where the majority of the student mas^ support non-racial sport. The decision to bring student clubs into the fold o' the SACOS affiliates and to make use of facilities on the campuses was takei’ after a number of meetings with student bodies and discussions at ConfereO' ces. It was taken in a totally democratic manner and individuals in different aP filiates who decided not to accept it because of their own political perception® have created division in our ranks. The liberal press gave much prominence to the campaign of the South Africai^ Rugby Board to get back into international rugby through Africa and the resul; tant talks held in Harare between the ANC, the South African Rugby Board aoO our affiliate the South African Rugby Union. The South African Rugby Uniof’ Executive on their return to South Africa reported back to their affiliates and requested a meeting with the SACOS Executive. After receiving the report th® Executive issued the following statement: "The Executive Committees of the South African Council on Sport (SACOS) and the South African Rugby Union (SARU) met in Cape Town on SaturdaV’ 22 October 1988. SARU briefed SACOS fully on the recent talks betweef^ SARU, the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African RugbV Board. The meeting also gave attention to the various reports which have appeared in the media. From SARU’s report it is clear that a number of these reports contain misconceptions, incorrect conclusions and distortions. Reports that a split between SACOS and SARU is imminent are malicious and totally un­ founded. The SACOS Executive Committee accepts that SARU has acted in the spirit of non-racialism and in accordance with the aims and objectives of the broad liberatory movement". Various interpretations were placed on the motives of the Executive and two publications in particular launched a scathing political attack on the Executive and SARU. Whilst no attempts were made to ascertain the facts of the Rugby initiative SARU was accused of a political sell-out. By implication the Execu­ tive was similarly accused. The Executive report was tabled at a General Meeting on 3rd December 1988. Our position on the rugby development was accepted without opposition. Clearly, therefore, the affiliates did not agree with the position of organisations who maliciously interpreted the SARU position as a sell-out. Despite this, further articles appeared in January 1989 published by the same tendencies continuing the attack on SARU. Subtly the attack is also masked in a "Save SACOS" campaign pamphlet. These publications and pamphlets have and will continue to create serious division within the ranks of SACOS. The use of SACOS mastheads and emblems in these publications seem to fuel suspicions of alignment. SACOS is being used surreptitiously to attack other tendencies and organisations. Accusations are made that SACOS is being used as the testing ground for a negotiated settlement and that the condoning of the unity talks between SARU and the SARB by SACOS is a major shift in SACOS policy. In 1976 the Executive of SACOS, at the time, issued a press release welcom­ ing talks between the South African Cricket Union, the South African Cricket Board and the South African Cricket Board of Control, if such talks would bring about fundamental and principled unity of all cricketers. The SACU deviously used the talks to arrange a match between a Derrick Robins XI and a SAC- BOC X I. SACOS subsequently condemned this and the history of the SAC- BOC sell-out is well docum ent^. Despite these developments non-racial cricket under the banner of the South African Cricket Board has never been as strong and racist cricket never as iso­ lated internationally. Other SApOS affiliates also participated in dialogue with racist organisations over a period of time. At all times there was a clear understanding as to th« nature and purpose of these talks. A clear assessment of the tactical needs for such talks was made. Sport as a worldwide voluntary activity and the international sports boycofl continuously faces challenges and manoeuvres from apartheid sport and theif international allies. For tactical reasons and on the advice of fraternal organisa­ tions locally and internationally SACOS affiliates have participated in dialogue if it was necessary to expose the dishonest manoeuvres of racist sport. At various SACOS conferences the matter of dialogue with racist sport or­ ganisations has been debated. Whilst to many it may be contentious, a decision was taken in 1979 when it was decided that dialogue could take place with the proviso that a SACOS official is present to monitor developments. It is my considered view that such talks cannot be equated with political col­ laboration and allusions to a major policy shift in SACOS are mischievous and are certainly not deserving of organisations who purport to have a fraternal relationship with SACOS. Since 1976 the oppressed people have shown tremendous political awareness. This has been achieved through the hard work of numerous worker, student, political and other community organisations. The South African Council on Sport cannot provide a forum for attacks on political perspectives of any given tendency. Instead it has always strived to use the best of all tendencies to plot unity amongst non-racial sportspersons. At the end of the day sportspersons who may belong to the various political tendencies have a common interest and enemy. Whilst differences of opinion are necessary to advance democratic practices we cannot allow unnecessary divisions in our ranks to benefit racism in sport and society. SACOS GENERAL MEETINGS Because of the tensions outlined above SACOS meetings over the past 4 years resorted mainly to sorting out internal crises.

Load more

  31

Copy Link