Helen's weekly newsletter - 21 June 2010

Learning the Real Lessons of the World Cup

Our defeat to Uruguay on Wednesday was a blow. We will need a miracle - in the form of a big win against France on Tuesday - to stand a chance of progressing to the knock-out stages. Bafana Bafana need our support now more than ever. And we will stand firm. We are not fair-weather fans.

South Africans know that miracles have nothing to do with magic. They are the result of strong leadership, long hours of hard work, discipline and commitment to a vision of what we, as a nation, can be. These qualities enabled us to stage and host this mega-event, when so many doubted our capacity to do so. International visitors have seen these qualities, in abundant display throughout the length and breadth of our country.

The World Cup has given us the opportunity to show the world who we are. And the world is changing its stereotyped perceptions.

The big question is: What are we, as South Africans, learning from this great event?

We already know that sport is the great unifier of our nation. We must now consciously apply that knowledge in order to build great national teams, in every sports code. This can only happen if we spot talent at primary school level and develop it systematically. We know that developing an international sports star takes about 15 years of intensive, expert nurturing. We must begin at entry level: extending opportunity, rewarding effort, celebrating excellence. If we try to take short-cuts and avoid the long, disciplined slog, we cannot be world beaters. Cutting corners will miss most of the available talent, and in many sports codes, result in imposed quotas at the very top level, under the guise of "transformation". This is actually an excuse to avoid the challenges of real transformation.

But the lessons of the World Cup extend far beyond sport. Can we apply these lessons when life resumes after the final whistle blows on July 11?

One of the most amazing stories to have come out of the World Cup was published in the Mail & Guardian last week. It was a report on the 56 "World Cup Courts" set up around the country for the duration of the tournament to finalise cases expeditiously and efficiently.

The results have, apparently, been astounding. As the report noted:

"Justice in South Africa has never been this quick: Two armed men rob three foreign journalists at gun point on a Wednesday, police arrest them on the Thursday and by Friday night they've been tried, convicted and begun serving 15 year sentences."

This is a dramatic improvement in performance. Less than two years ago, then Deputy Justice Minister Johnny de Lange admitted that the criminal justice system is dysfunctional. He said:

"The situation is sometimes so overwhelming that we don't know what to do about crime. We have not necessarily taken the right decisions over the past 15 years or used resources efficiently."

De Lange admitted that a "large percentage" of the 2 million crimes reported each year are never solved due to a severe lack of detectives, forensic experts and resources, with only 6 cases finalised every month. De Lange said that government would complete a review of the criminal justice system, telling Parliament that "the time-frame is yesterday."

That was in 2008. We have not heard anything about the review since.

In contrast, the Department of Justice has certainly ramped up prosecutorial performance for the World Cup. Within four days of kick-off, 20 cases had been brought before the special courts and four finalised. At this rate, the special World Cup courts will finalise five times more cases per month than normal courts.

An equally dramatic example of rapid delivery is the Cape Town stadium, located on arguably the most sensitive piece of real estate in the country. It took less than four years to build, from conception to finalisation. In contrast, a proposed housing development, initiated at the same time as the stadium, is unlikely to be completed until 2013. It is still limping its way through the myriad, complex, planning procedures, with delays of up to 24 months to deal with objections in each of the three separate rounds of "public participation" required. This, despite Cape Town's housing crisis, with a backlog of 400,000 units. In the same way, a major flood-relief programme designed to assist shack dwellers on the Cape Flats this winter, has all but ground to a halt because of community conflicts.

Yet, despite the controversy surrounding the siting of the stadium, it forged ahead.

What was the difference?

I think the key difference was the fact that we knew we had an unchangeable deadline. We also knew that FIFA would hold us accountable for delivering to the required standards. As the world watched, we dared not fail.

The single greatest risk was that we would miss the deadline. We did everything necessary to prevent that risk.

Many of the delivery items for the World Cup were "lifted out" of normal bureaucratic procedures, and dealt with as "special cases" (from the special courts to the stadiums and the transport systems). National, provincial and local government aligned their efforts. The best project managers were brought on board. Deviations" from rigorous, time-consuming procedures were often granted. We did this, at all levels of government, because every other risk paled into insignificance compared with the catastrophe of missing the World Cup deadline. Or of falling short of the required standards.

In other development projects, politicians and officials know that there is a far greater perceived risk in non-adherence to complex, bureaucratic procedures. Lawyers point out every step of possible "non-compliance" with a myriad laws. Politicians and officials comply. Taking an unlawful short-cut can mean the end of your career. It is easier to extend a deadline than to explain why you failed to comply with a procedure.

This is why, nine months ago, I met President Jacob Zuma to brief him on the many laws and regulations that make it so difficult to deliver services to the poor. He has undertaken to review these laws and bring about changes where necessary. But this process in itself will take years, and the outcome will be highly controversial because shortening delivery time-frames must mean curtailing the extensive provision for public participation, in multi-phase planning processes, and giving more discretion to elected representatives and officials. There are great risks attached to this as well -- especially in a context of endemic corruption and power abuse.

There are no easy answers. But the debate has begun. And we must now go beyond talking. We must set immutable deadlines to meet targets in addressing some of our most intractable social challenges. If we can learn this lesson from the World Cup, and apply it in a way that does not erode democracy, it will have been more than worth it.