Publications
Partners
It has been a long, difficult road for Cricket South Africa on its journey to social justice, and while the process was flawed, it cannot be for nothing, writes Lloyd Burnard.
When Cricket South Africa (CSA) dropped all its charges against Proteas head coach Mark Boucher on Tuesday, there was the immediate feeling that this was the end of one of the most uncomfortable, ugly periods in the game's history.
For nearly two years, South African cricket has been rocked by accusations, revelations and acceptances of racism and exclusion within its structures - top to bottom - that go back decades.
It has been emotional, and there have been casualties, but that was always going to be the case.
The Social Justice for Nation-Building (SJN) hearings, which started on 6 July, 2021 and were chaired by respected advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza, came off the back of a year of Black Lives Matter sparking an awakening in cricket where players and coaches - past and present - shared their stories of injustice.
Some, like Makhaya Ntini's, were heartbreaking. Others, like that of Thami Tsolekile, were more complex.
What couldn't be denied, though, is that cricket was not always a game that treated all of its participants equally, and that made the SJN a necessary, long-overdue process.
At its core, the SJN was an opportunity for cricket to evolve through acknowledging its flawed history, and ensuring that those wrongs would not ever be repeated.
This beautiful game, with all of its intricacies, needs to be for everyone.
That was to be the mantra of this self-examination, yet somewhere along the way, the bigger picture got lost, and the SJN ultimately became about two men fighting for their careers and reputations.
Elements of the report itself, which Ntsebeza submitted in December last year, were problematic, with at least one of the accusations of racism levelled against Graeme Smith - in relation to his alleged refusal to work under former CEO Thabang Moroe because he was black - bordering on preposterous.
That, ultimately, is where an initially noble intention was skewed into something else.
Would Smith still be CSA's director of cricket had that report not been so unfairly accusatory? We cannot say. What we can say, however, is that the suggestions of racism by Ntsebeza, without much substance, drove Smith away.
His arbitration would ultimately clear his name, but it was a case of too little, too late.
Boucher's case is separate from Smith's, however, and that is something that not all South African cricket followers have been able to acknowledge.
The discrimination Paul Adams experienced in the Proteas dressing room around 20 years ago, where Boucher was present, had nothing at all to do with Smith.
Was Boucher the only member of the Proteas group back then who used to refer to Adams as "brown s***" during team fines meetings? Of course not, but not every member of the Proteas from the early 2000s is now sitting in the most important cricket position in the country.
CSA did have a responsibility to act following the Adams revelation, but it is in how that action was taken where it dropped the ball in an all too familiar fashion.
Where common sense was needed so desperately, panic instead took over, and decisions were taken hastily. It was knee-jerk and, in hindsight, unnecessary and so very damaging to all involved.
This is not what the SJN was ever supposed to be. It was never supposed to be used as a vehicle to drive people out of cricket or to lay the blame for generations of systemic inequality at the feet of one or two people.
Those who make Adams the target of their frustration are equally ignorant to the fact that the SJN was designed to be a space where anyone impacted by injustice could be given a safe platform to have a voice.
Adams made it clear from the very beginning that he was not seeking to bury anyone, but rather shed light on a culture that existed within the national team - not that long ago - that many would prefer not to acknowledge. Who are we to dictate to him how and when that story should be shared?
The very existence of that problematic culture should have been the takeaway here, and little else.
Adams was under no obligation to testify on behalf of a CSA legal team seeking to fire the national head coach. He had done his bit, and said his truth, and that is something CSA should have been aware of before lunging forward with their stacked Boucher charge sheet.
In fact, efforts to find a villain here at all are not only futile, but show a lack of understanding of the complexities that made the last two years of introspection so necessary in the first place.
There are no winners and no losers, but fortunately, the reputations of all involved remain intact. Smith and Boucher have been cleared, and CSA will live to fight another day, even if it must proceed with more egg on its face.
Was it perfect? Absolutely not.
Messy? Certainly.
Flawed? Definitely.
But were the last 22 months of South African cricket addressing its systemic problems worth it? They simply have to be.
Hopefully, lessons have been learnt and standards have been set in terms of what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to matters of inclusivity, team culture and equal opportunity and treatment.
Hopefully, this wasn't all for nothing.
Lloyd Burnard is the editor of Sport24, an award-winning sports journalist and author of Miracle Men: How Rassie's Springboks Won the World Cup.
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
