The problem has always been that to date these discussions and debates have adopted a very narrow perception of transformation. What people have been focused on is, “how many black players there are in a previously all-white team”.

If one looks at the analogy of the life of the butterfly and at the definitions mentioned, this approach is not one of transformation but rather one of modification.

The most recent outcry about unfair treatment of black players and the lack of transformation following the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in the US has, once again, exposed the fallibility of the concept of transformation and how it has been implemented in South Africa.

Admittedly, there have been quotas put into place for selection of representative teams at all levels of cricket – from primary school to the Proteas men’s and women’s teams. The stark truth is that a quota system is not a sustainable, long-term solution. It is akin to playing the lottery. It only seeks to specify the number of black players in a previously all-white team.

During June 2020, the latest report on Transformation in Sport compiled by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was released by the Department of Sport and Recreation. Minister Nathi Mthethwa highlighted the fact that fewer than 10% of the 25,000 schools in the country participate in sport.

A study I conducted revealed that between 2009 and 2019, despite achieving the numerical targets set (quotas), the representation of players from traditional townships in all the age group cricket teams selected by EP Cricket for the various tournaments is fewer than 10% of the total of “players of colour”.

While the quotas have been met, the majority of these players have been selected from the elite schools and former Model C schools, with a sprinkling from traditional township schools.

Of all the black Test players to have represented South Africa, Mfuneko Ngam is the only one who comes from a rural area and who completed his formal education in rural schools.

After 29 years of unification and many millions having been spent on so-called development programmes, we need to start asking why the pickings from the traditional townships are so poor. What, if any, has been the benefit of the dozen regional performance centres in the country? What type of monitoring and evaluation takes place? What types of reports are compiled and discussed by the various provincial and national boards at their meetings?

The current situation is characterised by few schools playing sport, club cricket being in dire straits, community facilities in an atrocious state, the sport itself being in a constant state of conflict, and current programmes not addressing the needs and desires of the population.

While it may be easy to simply point fingers at the cricket fraternity – and it certainly must bear the brunt of the blame – it alone is not responsible for the current state of affairs. A number of entities must collectively shoulder the blame for the situation and must, therefore, become part of a solution to resolve the problems. Other entities that must play a role are the Department of Education; Department of Sport, Arts and Culture as well as Local Government structures.

The catalyst in this situation must be the cricket structures at provincial and national levels since they lay claim to being the custodians of the sport.

What is real transformation?

What has been implemented to date has been a hopeless failure in all aspects. It is clear this cannot be termed transformation since no discernible change is visible.

We need to redefine exactly what we mean when referring to transformation that will act as a guide for all concerned as to what it is that we want to transform and achieve as a result.

A better definition would be: “Transformation is a process whereby an organisation realigns itself with a changing social, political and economic environment and engages in a process of internal renewal in order to discharge its public mandate as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

Adopting this definition means that we recognise that factors external to the organisation are necessitating drastic changes that must occur internally on many fronts if cricket is to achieve what it says it wants to.

Radical changes are required to bring about real transformation in cricket. These include a complete overhaul of the organisation’s structures from affiliate to national level, a revision of all processes and programmes, a revamp of the manner in which people are elected to serve the sport in various capacities so that mistakes of the past are not repeated, a mass capacity-building programme to ensure that administrators at all levels are properly skilled, engaging with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the new vision is shared and understood by all, and redirecting resources to where they are most needed. 

If organisations do not align their visions with the environment, or adapt their missions, goals, strategies, structures and organisational cultures to change, they will fail. And if leaders and managers do not sense the need for change and do not look beyond the boundaries of their “comfort zones”, they will lead their organisations to failure.

Change is a complicated process, at the heart of which lie people and their natural resistance to change.

The change process therefore poses major challenges to South African leaders, and leaders worldwide. How organisations manage change will inevitably mean the difference between success and failure in a very volatile environment.

Change is inevitable and cannot be ignored. It requires leaders who are bold, committed, visionary and not afraid of criticism that will inevitably come from elements opposed to change.

It must also be noted that transformation is an ongoing process since environments are ever changing. There is no end point in any transformation process. As is so often said – the only constant is change. DM