Caster Semenya Must Be Tested for Gender

Unfortunately there is very little that in this world that politicians can not abuse to score political points, seek popularity and be seen to be fighting for the cause of the people. As someone said this past week "when the athletics world stops talking about Usain Bolt..who broke two world records in amazing fashion within a week...then there must be something absolutely significant that has happened." This event is "Caster Semenya", the 18 year old South African who won the 800m female race at the IAAF event in Berlin this past week. She appeared literary from nowhere, was not at the Beijing Olympics last year and was was not known in the wider world until she rocked up in Berlin and beat her more experienced (and better sponsored ) competitors by such a margin, that she could have gone and taken a shower and get herself a drink afterwards before the other girls crossed the finish line.

But because she has a deep voice, muscular structure and physical appearance that resemble that of a man, the debate around her gender (is Cater male or female?) just exploded. It was already there (though low key) in the months and days building up to the IAAF event. It became significant when it became clear that she was faster than any of the 800m female competitors. If Caster had come last in the heats before the final and if she had been knocked out in the early rounds and therefore had no chance of winning anything, no one would have noticed her or even started to wonder if she was male or female.

Unlike the many politicans and sports leaders in South Africa who have started politicising the issue and seeing it as a racist attack by the whites on this poor African girl and all Africans in general, my opinion is that these politicians and leaders are playing cheap politics. The issue of Caster's gender is not primarily a political or racial matter. To accuse the whites and the IAAF of being racist reveals a level of ignorance or an attempt to mislead people that is disgusting. This however does not mean that there is no racism in sports, but one must not behave as if Caster is the first balck person to win against whites in international sport. Michael Johnson (the US athlete) broke a number of world records in the 200m race is black. The best soccer player, Pele, is black. The best basketball player who ever lived (Michael Jordan) is black, Usain Bolt himself is black, as well as many black male and female athletes who have beat white athletes in many competitions.

The question around Caster's gender is firmly based on the fact that international sports is big business these days. Forget the winner's prize (significant as it might be), the endorsement deals, sponsorship deals and other benefits (fame, publicity, TV appearances etc.) that come after winning major international events can be significant. We all are amazed at English premiership football players who earn 100 000 british pounds a week and think that's lots of money, but they actually make millions outside football by endorsing products and being part of commercials on TV and on billboards. Because of the huge stakes in international sport, it is only fair and just that anybody who plays the game is seen to abide by the rules. Any suspicion of anything untoward must be investigated. The fact that sport competitions are conducted separately for males and females mean that only females must participate in female events and only males in male events. Just like events that are conducted for certain age groups only (e.g. Under 17 or Under 23 soccer world cup etc.) which must be ensured that only players who meet the criteria participate.

International sport is brutal (because of the huge commercial stakes) and whoever participates in it must not be naive to believe that they can still have their privacy. As soon as one gets to the international scene, one becomes "public property". That could be seen as unfortunate, but it is reality. David Beckham, Usain Bolt, Kobbie Bryant, Ronaldo and Caster Semenya are "public property." Because they are in the limelight, whatever they do becomes public knowledge. If David Beckham is seen with another woman other than his wife under suspicious circumstances, that becomes headline news. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another debate, but there is no debate around the fact that, this is now reality. Those who manage Caster should have coached her in this regard, that as soon as she starts appearing on Sky Sport, ESPN, BBC, CNN etc., she can forget about privacy. Whatever is newsworthy about her whill be discusssed without any reservation, and not just her running. The world will want to know who her boyfriend is, where did she sleep last night and whether she has smoked dagga before.

Since there is debate and no clarity (even among black South Africans) whether Caster is male or female, it is only fair and just that she be tested. The vast majority of those who say she is female do so on the basis of what Caster, her family and those close to her have said. But almost all black South Africans who have seen pictures of Caster, heard her voice and observed how she moves have said that she indeed appears like a man. It is not her fault that she is the way she is, she did not make herself the way she is, but since she has entered the public arena, registered to compete in public in a female event (and girl she can run) and any average person could have reasonable doubt about her gender without one being called stupid or naive or sexist, it is fair for the entire world that she be tested. As already mentioned these doubts are not only among whites, even blacks who have seen her have indicated that she indeed has very significant male features.

Therefore put the politics aside and look at the facts and issue. Of course one can critisize the IAAF or South African athletics authorities who should have seen this coming and should have been proactive and clarify this matter way in advance. The fact that they are now dealing with is after she won the gold medal might appear to be vindictive.

Caster Semenya must be tested for her gender not necessarily for her to know whether she is male or female, but for the sake of the entire world to close the chapter. Even if the IAAF rules on gender testing are fuzzy, she herself (and those managing her) must welcome and insist on a thorough test to clarify the matter. It is almost like someone who has been accused of a crime but believes in his/her innocence and therefore insists that they be cleared by a court of law. Anything less than that will leave a cloud hanging over one's head for the rest of their lives.
If she doesn't test, the media will not stop to raise the issue and she would not be able to handle the pressue of the public eye and not be able to prepare for future events and this might be the first and last big event she ever participated in.

South African White Farmers Should Freely Give Back Some Land Urgently

Speaking at the launch of the government's National Comprehensive Rural Development Programme in Giyani (Limpopo) this week on Monday, the South African president Jacob Zuma made a very key statement concerning land. He said, the government would have to investigate "less costly" ways of land acquisition, by talking to all concerned. He admitted that the willing-buyer, willing-seller model did not work. Government will look for a more pragmatic formula to land redistribution, but this formula would not be a "super-profit making" business venture.

In order to understand the implications of these statements one must look at the issue of land distribution in South Africa in light of the what took place in Zimbabwe during the last decade.

The question of land ownership is an emotionally charged one in Africa. European colonialists would remove people from their land and move them to less suitable places in order to make way for white settlers. These forced removals have left huge scars in many African people and this has greatly contributed to the lack of economic development among the black people over the last century. Blacks have always lived from farming and taking away their land disturbed their historic development and took away whatever opportunities they had for economic development. Taking away their land also led to urban migrations which resulted in the growing of informal settlements and squatter camps on the peripheries of the cities.

Forced removals and relocations were equivalent (though to a different scale) to the shipment of black Africans to America as slaves. Colonial settlers made blacks homeless in their own country. The displacement of blacks from their land resulted in the creation of huge farms that were used by whites for farming as well as cattle ranching or the raising of other animals e.g. game farming. This led to a significant growth in the wealth of the whites while the blacks in general became poorer and poorer. The land left to the blacks was often overcrowded and not suitable for any agro-economic activity. Of course it would be simplistic to imply that the poverty among the blacks is solely a result of these forced removals of people from suitable land, but one must also remember that these removals were accompanied by discriminatory policies in education, access to economic opportunities towards the blacks.

If one studies the reasons for many of the liberation struggles against white colonialism in Africa, one notices that the land question was one of if not the key reason for the struggle. When the black majority took over political power in the African countries there was (and still) is a huge expectation on the part of blacks that the new governments resolve the land question by redistributing the land. But of course the decades of colonial rule resulted in the development of a huge commercial farming industry which supplies the nation with food and also produces some for export. These commercial farms were to a great extent built on land that was taken from the blacks. Modern economies need functioning commercial farming both for the feeding of the nation as well as for export. This leads to the black governments finding themselves in a Catch 22 situation because on one side they need the commercial farming , but they also have a moral duty to redistribute the land, revive rural economies, provide opportunities for small scale farmers and ensure that people don't always run to the cities in search of a livelihood.

It is generally agreed that some sort of land redistribution needs to take place not only to try and reverse the historical injustices but also to de-congest some very crowded rural areas as well as create economic opportunities for many rural communities. The challenges has been on how to do it. Modern societies have laws which recognise property rights and rights to own land. Although much of the land in the hands of many white farmers was acquired "illegally" by forcefully taking it away from blacks, the white ownership of this land has been "legalised" in the subsequent years. According the the constitution, the one with the title deeds owns the land. Governments have therefore struggled with the dilemma of respecting the constitutional right of the current land owners as well as trying to rectify the sins of the past. Many African governments have tried to resolve this dilemma by finding money and buying some land from the white farmers for redistribution. The attempt to undo the forced acquisition of land through buying it back from those who took it illegally sounds bizarre, but is seen as a possible solution. However the challenge faced by many African governments is that the "willing-buyer willing-seller" process can and has been and is being abused by the "sellers." Many of them see this as an opportunity to make super-profits, knowing that the government is desperate to get land to resettle poor blacks.

The South African government has recently realised that they don't have enough money to buy enough land for those who need it, but at the same time does not want to take land from the white farmers by force. Everybody knows the outcry that will come from the West if African governments take property from the whites by force. This is President Zuma's concern and hence his remarks about "pragmatic formula to land distribution." There is a great fear that the patience of those waiting for land will run out and the government will not be able to control the results. It is therefore crucial that the white farmers who own vast tracks of land come to the party by giving some of that land to the government for distribution. They have a moral obligation to do that as way of "atoning" for the sins of the past. These sins might have been committed by generations before them but we all carry the burden of the sins of our fathers. Just like modern Germany still bears the burden of the Hitler's 3rd Reich. The gesture of giving back some land must be seen by the white farmers as a necessity for the purpose of creating a more peaceful South Africa. A peaceful South Africa is good for everybody. If whites give back some land they will indeed be investing in their own security and future.

A look at what happened in Zimbabwe reveals what happens when the land question is not resolved properly on the African continent. The white farmers are key to that resolution by being gracious and grateful for the fact that in spite of the historical atrocities perpetrated by the colonial governments the new black governments have chosen to forget the past and work towards racial harmony. In Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe abused the unresolved land question for his own selfish ends and to remain in power. The opposition MDC took the land question and challenged Mugabe that he hadn't resolved it. That made the MDC popular and when Mugabe felt threatened he unleashed violence on the white farmers in order to create terror in the country and oppress any opposing voices. In other words, he took a legitimate issue and abused it for his own selfish purposes. This has made the issue of land in Zimbabwe confusing to many outsiders. On one side they celebrate Mugabe as a champion of the land question in Africa but on the other side they see the destruction he caused to Zimbabwe. When Mugabe started taking farms from white farmers, the white farmers went to the courts to appeal for their rights to be protected. To resolve that, Mugabe replaced the judges with his own judges who danced to his tune and judged in Mugabe's favour. He also changed the laws and created new laws that allowed land to be taken away. Therefore the taking away of land became "lawful." It's like the apartheid government that established laws that prohibited blacks from living in certain areas and then making forced removals "legal." A warped legal system.

It is therefore important that those who own vast pieces of land give up some of it at no charge to the government before the situation is such that all the land gets taken away from them by force. They should not just give up the land, but partner government in settling small scale farmers on this land, provide training for them on how to be effective farmers and create harmony between blacks and white people in South Africa. Doing this would go a long way to show the black majority that the whites realise their obligation to some sort of restitution for the evils of the past. This would also take away a reason the political party in government might think of using to stay in power when they feel that they might lose power through the democratic system. Just like ZANU-PF abused the land issue to maintain its hold on power. If white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe had voluntarily given up some of the land to blacks since 1980, they would have pulled the rug off Mugabe's feet and he wouldn't have had the opportunity to abuse the land question. South African white farmers should learn from Zimbabwe.