So while the UK elections got downgraded to a cheap popularity contest with people voting for the best looking, dressed and mannered candidate, the World Cup became a turning point deciding whether South Africa would gain access to the elite club of first world nations.
Naturally, ever since South Africa was announced as the host country of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the British press has been more than pessimistic, harsh and unfair about the country’s ability to host the tournament. On Thursday things were put in perspective...
But first of all, let’s compare the two countries on a superficial Wikipedia and sophisticated Human Development Index Basis!
The UK is Europe’s 5th most populous country with 62 million inhabitants, 92% of them white. The average UK citizen earns $35.334 and can reasonably expect to live until she is 80. The Human Development Index, a measure which classifies countries according to their developmental status, for the UK is 0.947 (making it the 21st most developed country in the world) and the Gini Coefficient, which measures inequality, is only 34.
On the other hand, the majority of South Africa’s 50 million people are black (79%) and only 9% white. The average annual income is $5.823, but with a Gini coefficient of 57.8 income inequalities are substantial; this is highlighted by the fact that 42% of the population live on less than $2 a day. The country has an HDI of 0.683 (ranking 129th) reflecting that life expectancy is only 51.5 years and one in three people do not survive the age of 40. Moreover, 88% of adults are illiterate and every tenth child suffers from serious malnutrition; in contrast these figures are not even reported for the UK.
So while on paper South Africa and the UK seem worlds apart, there are some interesting parallels:
In 2009, South Africa elected a new President and will host the World Cup this year.
The UK tried to elect a new Prime Minister on Thursday and will host the Olympic Games in 2012.
So both countries have recently organized a major political event and are about to host a major sporting one. And that is not the end of the parallels…
Just like the British elections, the South Africa’s elections went by no means smooth: Higher than expected voter turnout caught officials by surprise in both countries and long queues of people formed outside polling stations. But while the situations may initially seem similar, there are some important differences:
UK...
...South Africa
• In South Africa, voters waited for up to ten hours in the freezing cold to cast their vote. In the UK waiting for 45 minutes was considered completely unacceptable (even though queuing is seen as one of the classic British traits) and people went to the pub (which I guess is another British trait…) only to find even longer queue when they came back.
• When the South African polling stations ran out of ballot papers, they organised new ones. In Britain this was for some reason not possible.
• In South Africa the government managed to organise policing, lights (which in some parts of the country wasn’t easy), blankets, additional staff and tea and allowed voting until everyone, who was in the queue by the time polling stations were supposed to close, had been able to cast their vote. In the UK polling stations failed to mobilise additional staff and voting stations turned everyone, who was not in possession of a ballot paper by 10pm away – regardless of whether they were in the queue or not.
• In South Africa, where crime is unarguably a problem, the police was called to protect people from potential muggings. In the UK the police had to protect polling station employees from angry voters and remove protesting crowds.
• In South Africa the government was apologetic about problems during the elections, accepted that it had underestimated voter turnout and that there had been organisational problems. In the UK politicians were quick to blame voters for the problems during the elections pointing out that voters had not had their polling cards ready, turned up at different polling stations and in “absolute laziness” did not join the queues but left only to find longer queues later on.
The UK...
...South Africa
It seems as if the UK in its efforts to host “the most basic part of the democratic process” has been thrown back into the dark ages with results showing a “Third World lack of democracy” in one of the world’s most advanced economies. Commentators already expect that the results will be legally challenged and that frustrated voters will claim compensation for being denied their right to vote. I could not agree more with a BBC editor, who said that it is a tragedy that, “after a campaign which engaged and energised many who were previously cynical about politics, tonight’s story may be being over-shadowed by the extraordinary revelation that Britain” is unable to organise fair elections.
Keeping in mind all the facts about the UK and South Africa, this story paints a rather different picture of the two countries and their ability to host successful elections … and sporting tournaments!?!
While the elections in South Africa may have been chaotic and disorganised, the government managed to put in place emergency measures which ensured that despite difficult external conditions (cold weather, safety risk and shortage of electricity in rural areas) everyone who wanted to vote was allowed to do so. The UK on the other hand failed to demonstrate adequate flexibility and crisis management and ended up with an election outcome that is open to legal challenges…
So what does that say about their ability to host sporting tournaments? Well, I don’t know about you, but I am going to sit back, relax and stop worrying about the football: South Africa has shown that it can cope with emergencies and will do a magnificent job
No comments:
Post a Comment