As I write this, Jacob Zuma’s political fate hangs in the balance. Currently, it is agreed that Zuma and the state will clash on December 8th 2008 in order to set a date when he should stand trial. As reported in the Mail & Guardian [August 15th 2008], this is dependent on two things: whether or not Zuma agrees to be tried in the second quarter of 2009 and whether or not Judge Chris Nicholson decides to rule in favour of Zuma and declare attempts to prosecute him unconstitutional. If an agreement is indeed reached, then Zuma will probably stand trial next year. But there’s one problem from the state’s point of view.

It seems to the observer that Zuma is probably stalling his trial right up to 2009, which just happens to be election year. He’s either trying to postpone his trial as long as possible and then come Election Day, if Zuma wins, he will have immunity as President. Or, he’s hoping that Judge Chris Nicholson rules in favour of him. Or he’s trying to sap the state’s patience – unlikely if the state feels they have a strong case against him. If he is convicted before Election Day, it’s also possible that Thabo Mbeki could give him a presidential pardon – again, highly unlikely given that the animosity between these two is well-known (though subtle). But let’s take a brief look at Zuma the man.

Zuma, a Zulu of the Msholozi clan, hails from Inkandla in rural KwaZulu-Natal. His father was a policeman who died when young Zuma was still a boy. He received little schooling, but he was, and still is, remarkably intelligent and has great, natural charisma. He involved himself in revolutionary politics at a young age, joining the ANC aged 17. Shortly afterwards, he joined Umkhonto weSizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress. He was arrested in 1963 along with 45 other cadres, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on Robben Island, where he met with senior ANC leaders like Nelson Mandela. Zuma was released in the 1970s, and he was influential in re-establishing the ANC underground in KwaZulu-Natal and became a member of the National Executive Committee. He left South Africa for independent Zambia in the 1980s, rising to the rank of Chief of the Intelligence Department, and also served on the ANC’s political and military council. Prior to the first democratic elections in 1994, Zuma was influential in quelling political violence in his native KwaZulu-Natal. He served as Deputy President of South Africa from 1999 until 2005, when President Thabo Mbeki relieved him of his duties due to the corruption charges against him. He then faced a rape trial shortly afterwards, where he was found not guilty. He was reinstated as Deputy President of the ANC, but Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka replaced him as Deputy President of the nation.

So Zuma’s back and providing he doesn’t get convicted, we are looking at South Africa’s third black president, third democratically elected president, second oldest elected president (Nelson Mandela was 76 when elected, Thabo Mbeki, 57), first Zulu president, second president to have stood trial for their anti-Apartheid activities. But Zuma requires a real analysis and critique which hasn’t been tainted by the ridiculous sensationalism which frequents the South African media. South Africans need to take a step back and look at the whole Zuma before predicting the country’s collapse if he becomes President. South Africa needs to take a look at the issues which will be on everyone’s agenda come 2009.

ZUMA vs The Economy

This is a crucial issue and no doubt plays on the minds on those suspicious of a Zuma presidency. Zuma’s close relations with and strong support from South Africa’s political left, comprising the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the ANC Youth League and the Young Communist League, no doubt worries the investors and businessman. Concerned that Zuma will move away from the market friendly policies of Thabo Mbeki (which have been heavily criticised by the left) in favour of nationalisation and redistribution of wealth, many economists feel that Zuma will end South Africa’s longest period of sustained growth since the end of World War II. But Zuma has gone out of his way to meet with investors and businessmen, both abroad and domestic, to ask for their continued investment in the continent’s strongest economy, thereby potentially alienating supporters on the left, stating:

“The question of economic growth remains a priority we will focus on”

His candidacy for ANC President was also endorsed by Tokyo Sexwale, a veteran of the struggle and business tycoon and his supporters. There is still Zuma’s support for redistribution of wealth, but we will come to that later.

ZUMA vs Zimbabwe & Robert Mugabe

Whatever happens to Thabo Mbeki, he will forever be remembered as the man who stood by while Zimbabwe melted down. A man who stubbornly stuck to his water pistols while ‘mad Bob’ Mugabe intelligently and systematically destroyed a country that was once Africa’s bread basket, with a GDP equal to that of South Korea’s, and a 90% literacy rate. Zuma, on the other hand, has been nothing short of consistent in his criticism and condemnation of Robert Mugabe, as with most people on South Africa’s political left. He has also criticised the policies of his predecessor:

“It is even more tragic that other world leaders who witness repression pretend it is not happening, or is exaggerated. When history eventually deals with the dictators, those who stood by and watched should also bear the consequences. A shameful quality of the modern world is to turn away from injustice and ignore the hardships of others”

Thank you, Jacob. Thank you for saying what so many of us have been saying for so long. You could not be any closer to the truth. The entire world has turned a blind eye to the millions of suffering, starving people. Shame on you, Thabo. Shame on you for letting Mugabe destroy the lives of all his people. Mugabe stole elections, intimidated opponents and practically beat his own people to a pulp, and still you stood by. Jacob is right, you are also complicit in Mugabe’s crimes.
Zuma further reiterated his view of Mugabe in July at an ANC dinner when he compared Mugabe to other African leaders “who refuse to bow out and try to change the constitution to accommodate themselves.”
Should Zuma become president, we can no doubt expect a tougher stance on Zimbabwe (provided Mugabe hasn’t swallowed his pride and stepped down – unlikely).

SHERIFF ZUMA vs Crime

When your Minister for Safety & Security attacks people who question the government’s committment to fighting crime and refers to them as ‘crime whingers’, it doesn’t really bode well. Another complete failure of Thabo Mbeki’s administration has been crime, which will probably be an issue in South African society for many years to come thanks to Mbeki’s inability to tackle it. It’s a thorny issue because crime is probably the number one reason why South Africans emigrate abroad.

Unlike a lot of his colleagues, Zuma has taken a hardline stance on crime, which is thoroughly admirable given the willingness of Thabo Mbeki and others to either dodge the issue or re-word crime into a question of racism. He has stated that the South African legal system must not be user-friendly for criminals and “must have teeth”. He has supported various crime fighting initiatives, but probably the only stain on Zuma with regards to this issue is his support of the decision to disband the Scorpions. We have yet to see the effects of this move, but I do not think this was a wise decision. One would not be wrong to suggest that this was politically motivated.

ZUMA vs Poverty

We’re back to an issue which ties in with the economy and with crime. Poverty is without a doubt the number one cause of crime, and we have to solve the two issues in unison. Going back to the economy, Mbeki’s market-friendly policies have been accused of churning out a minority black elite, while leaving behind the vast majority. Zuma has repeatedly stated that more needs to be done to fight poverty, and for that matter he will no doubt be in favour of spending more money on services like health, education, housing and welfare. This doesn’t sound good, some suggesting Zuma supports operating the budget on a slight deficit to do all that. But the simple matter is that we need to introduce more measures to fight poverty. People must have free access to health and education, and that requires money. If we do all this to improve people’s livelihoods, then fighting crime will be a lot easier.

GENERAAL JACOBUS ZUMA vs Die Khakis

He isn’t really under obligation to do it, because their support is actually meaningless when you think about it, but Jacob Zuma has gone out of his way to extend a hand to White South Africans, especially the Afrikaans community. He has met folk musicians Steve Hofmeyr, Leon Schuster and various Afrikaner leaders, including Dr Pieter Mulder. If you don’t know who Dr Mulder is, he is the leader of the right-wing, Afrikaner separatist Vryheidsfront Plus. I personally find them a laughing stock because of their belief that Afrikaners are different to South Africa, and their desire to separate Afrikaners from the rest of South Africa. Yet Zuma met and discussed various issues with them, and Mulder was no doubt impressed with Zuma, who was said to have had a grasp on “issues which at present directly affect the Afrikaans community.” He has also met with Afrikaans business leaders, union leaders, farmers and even the “poor white” community and expressed solidarity with their aims. Also, while visiting London, he desired to meet emigrant South Africans (I know because my sister and I wanted to go see him). He is also said to have good relations with the Indian community; my uncle met him earlier this year and was also very impressed.
Of course, there are some Afrikaners who may be suspicious of Zuma (like the morons at the Herstigte Nasionale Party), but Zuma’s wooing of the Afrikaans community is no different to the olive branch that Nelson Mandela extended many years ago. Thanks to Thabo Mbeki and his racial short-sightedness, White South Africans have become marginalised, and Zuma should be commended for trying to bring them back into the new South Africa. Clearly, Zuma comes across as someone who wants to bridge the all-too-real racial divide in South Africa. As much as we want to bang on about our non-racial society, race is still poisoning our politics and nation. Zuma probably also possesses that rare gift to unite different races that Nelson Mandela had, and Thabo Mbeki sadly lacked.

DR ZUMA vs Aids

Okay, I’m going to concede one point in my defence of Zuma. At his rape trial, Zuma said that he showered after having [what the courts concluded] consensual sex with a woman who was HIV positive (without a condom, I might add). Now, when Zuma then said that, it caught on like a wildfire throughout the South African media. I actually think he might have referred to the fact that, for example, those leaflets you get in packets of condoms (yes, I have read them before action for safety measures!) actually suggest you should have a shower after sex, simply so that you’re clean before you go to bed. But instead what happened was that Zuma was presented as this bumbling idiot who thought that a shower reduces infection of HIV. It was so vicious that Zuma is now universally portrayed in the media with a shower head on his forehead. Although I believe it is unwarranted (given that I suggested what Zuma probably really meant), it was not a wise move for a potential president of a nation with one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world. Whether his words were twisted by the media or not, Zuma does need to accept responsibility for his actions and realise that he tempted fate by having unprotected sex with a HIV positive woman. Although one positive from Zuma’s experience is that he hasn’t actually questioned the root of AIDS, unlike Thabo Mbeki. Like Zimbabwe, crime and poverty, Mbeki’s policy on AIDS was stay quiet and say nothing. He further hampered the AIDS struggle by employing Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as Health Minister, now infamous for proposing beetroot, garlic, African potatoes and a healthy diet as the solution, and sacking Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, the Deputy Health Minister and one of the few members of the ANC to publicly acknowledge the AIDS crisis. Zuma can still redeem himself on this most crucial issue, and I believe he can.

CONCLUSION

Given his stances on the various issues which will pertain to South Africans come next year, Zuma is a far cry from the bumbling, shower-headed buffoon we see in the media. He is actually very articulate, humble and very intelligent, and he comes across as someone who likes to listen, rather than talk. He doesn’t pretend to be a philosopher king, he is very personable and people can identify with him, probably thanks to his background and rural upbringing. Unlike his predecessor, who had a penchant for sacking people who didn’t toe the line, Zuma likes to surround himself with people who are more intelligent than himself and is willing to accept responsible criticism. It should also be noted that Zuma and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela were the only two prominent ANC members to visit the victims of the recent violence against foreigners.
He has done much to bridge the different communities of South Africa; he wears his heart on his sleeve and cares much for people less fortunate than himself. Naturally, Zuma is not perfect, he has slipped up on issues like AIDS and his support for the Scorpions disbanding, but his political style is not cold and authoritarian, and surely that is something we should be happy about. Obviously nobody can try and be another Nelson Mandela, because he was totally his own man, but the best that we as South Africans can do is to try and emulate Madiba as much as possible. And in Zuma, we have a man who is not as close to Madiba as any of us will get, but is still very close.

This blog is inspired in part by a two year old article I read at the time. It’s a “review” – and I say that term loosely because the author of the article didn’t even see the film – of Ken Loach’s 2006 drama, The Wind That Shakes The Barley. Loach’s movie is based on a book of the same name about a band of brothers who join the IRA during the Irish War of Independence. Please remember that this IRA was not responsible for the bombings or acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland during the 1960s and 1970s. This IRA was fighting a genuine, anti-imperialist war against the British Empire and their actions paved the way for the establishment of the Republic of Ireland. Enter Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Previously, I had never heard of Ms Dudley Edwards. She is an Irish historian and writer, born and raised in Dublin. I only heard about her when I read that reprehensible article “reviewing” The Wind That Shakes The Barley in the Daily Mail, also known as the UK Conservative Party’s mouthpiece. Most of her work involves painting a sympathetic picture of Unionism and Loyalism. She also wrote The Faithful Tribe, a meticulously planned celebration of the Orange Order, a sectarian, anti-Catholic organisation that preaches that bigotry much more than honouring the heritage and courage of the Protestant Northern Irish.
Some Irish people have a name for people like Dudley Edwards: “West British.” It’s used as a perjorative for Irish people who are said to be culturally or politically sympathetic to Britain. Of course, my dislike of Dudley Edwards doesn’t stem from her friendship and sympathy with Ulster Unionists/Loyalists. No, I don’t lower myself to such bigotry. It comes from another name for people like Dudley Edwards, and this time it was coined by Mao Zedong – revisionists, or people who try to alter the truth of history. Because that’s unfortunately what Dudley Edwards is. She’s a revisionist historian, one of many whose work involves trying to gloss over the human rights record of the British Empire. This is best exemplified by a line from the article she wrote in the Daily Mail regarding that much:

“For the truth is that, as empires go, the British version was the most responsible and humane of all.

With all its deficiencies, it brought much of value to most of the countries it occupied. Also, it all happened a long time ago and no one should be forced to apologise for it.”

I’m not going to lose my cool and resort to using swear words, but that comment reflects pure, undiluted ignorance on Dudley Edwards’ part, and it made my blood boil. The British Empire, like any empire, existed purely to force British culture and the British way of life on foreign peoples, and if they didn’t like it, they were violently put down. That is a fact. Can Dudley Edwards honestly say that the British occupation of India brought value to Kashmir? Or what about Israel and Palestine, when that area was a British Mandate?
Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone asserted that Ireland’s treatment at the hands of Britain over 700 years was worse than the Jews’ treatment under Hitler. I don’t know if he’s right, because I don’t believe that crimes against humanity should be compared. But the simple truth is that under British rule, the Irish endured centuries of successive wars, famines and massacres. Oliver Cromwell’s actions in Ireland would, by today’s standards, be classified as crimes against humanity and genocide. And when you consider the other wars, famines and massacres that Britain levelled against the Boers, Xhosas and Zulus in South Africa (it should also be noted that concentration camps were first used by the British during the Second Boer War), the Maori and Indigenous Australians, the Indians, you realise that Britain was ruthless and vicious in putting down people who simply refused to be ruled by a foreign power. So I think Dudley Edwards is totally wrong in her assertion that the British Empire was somehow a benevolent hegemon.

Dudley Edwards hit back later on at “nice, well-meaning, leftish people like George Monbiot” in The Guardian.

Monbiot simply claimed that if we remembered and listened to the lessons of the Irish War of Independence, we might never have invaded Iraq. Dudley Edwards crudely responded that people like Monbiot:

“…see only negatives when they consider the record of Britain in Ireland and are blinkered by ignorance and blinded by romance when they look at violent republicanism.”

As I stated earlier, it’s actually hard to see positives in Britain’s record in Ireland, beside massacres, famines and today, the slow linguicide of the Irish language. She stated that people like Loach who view Irish republicans as “tormented idealists who sometimes do things they shouldn’t” and the British “as cynical, brutal and despicable” are being “morally lazy.” It’s not about treating the IRA as morally correct freedom fighters. Yes, there were atrocities on both sides, but at the end of the day, the Irish had the moral high ground because they simply wanted to determine their own destinies, and that request was denied time after time. And what is it about the Royal Irish Constabulary (or the more used term Black and Tans, because of they wore khaki and black) that deserves special recognition? That they were ex-servicemen who “had survived years of war only to end up in Ireland being shot at from behind hedges”? Some were ex-servicemen, but some historians claim that there were sections of the Tans actually drafted from British prisons. The violence experienced by the Tans at the hands of the IRA was induced by the British, and 95% of historians agree that the Tans responded with more inhumane violence (Croke Park massacre, anyone?). And if they were ex-servicemen, they should have learned the lessons of war and said no. Dudley Edwards does mention ethnic cleansing of Protestants in some Irish villages. This probably did happen and it cannot be condoned, but anti-Protestantism in Ireland was more nationalist in tone than religious, as Protestants were more likely to be Irish people of English stock and have unionist sympathies. Besides, Theobald Wolfe Tone, who is widely regarded as the father of modern Irish republicanism, was a Protestant of Anglo-Irish heritage. His United Irishmen sought to unite Irish of all religions and backgrounds to throw out the British, and it was after then that the British establishment used a policy of divide and conquer to separate Irish Catholics from Irish Protestants, who might well have held nationalist sympathies. Other prominent nationalists and republicans who were Protestant include Sam Maguire, Charles Stewart Parnell and Robert E. Childers.

Now this is not meant to be a mere diatribe against Dudley Edwards and a glorified manifesto for the IRA recruitment program. I disagree with Ken Loach where he states that partition has failed and the “unionist veto on change must be removed”. What we have in Northern Ireland today is a chance for lasting peace. I admire both Reverend Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness for willing to put aside past differences in the name of peace for the next generation. But Monbiot simply stated a truth that nobody listens to: violence only begets more violence and hatred begets more hatred. The actions of the British in Ireland a hundred years ago spawned the IRA and related organisations, just as American (and British – surprised?) actions in Iraq and the Middle East today give fuel to hacks like Osama bin Laden. Those children you see today on TV whose whole families have been blown up by Israeli or American rockets will be tomorrow’s terrorists. Just as the children of the executed Easter Rising leaders became the next day’s Irish republicans.

Ruth Dudley Edwards simply cannot go on kidding herself that Ireland under Britain was a great place, or that the British Empire was somehow more benevolent than others. It was exactly like any other empire. People were forced to speak a foreign language, wear foreign dress and act foreign because it was considered superior. Those who weren’t considered British enough were kept down by the oppressor’s boot. The sooner we all realise the truth about every single colonial power, the better we can move on unhindered. And when the dancing, parading idiots of the Orange Order realise that there is a place for honouring one’s heritage and not preaching bigotry and more hate, the peace that Reverend Paisley, Martin McGuinness and their colleagues fought for will be permanent.

I’d be an idiot if I said there wasn’t any controversy surrounding Peter de Villiers selection as the new coach of the Springboks, South Africa’s national rugby side early this year. Unfortunately, it’s for one reason, and one reason alone: his skin colour. What’s more unfortunate is that in South Africa, skin colour probably means even more today than it did during the dark days of apartheid. It was sad when an intelligent (or seemingly) individual like Oregan Hoskins, the Eternal President of the South African Rugby Union, did the unthinkable and not only put his foot in his mouth and but also on de Villiers’ back when he claimed outright that de Villiers’ selection this year was racially motivated:

“We have made the appointment and taken into account the issue of transformation when we made it. I don’t think that tarnishes Peter — I’m just being honest with our country“

I guess it makes a change for the Eternal President to be honest for once. But the sad fact is, Mr Eternal President, it does tarnish Peter. It puts him in a difficult position because people will continue to question Peter’s credentials right up to 2011 (provided he stays on until then). Simply because his coaching credentials, which are definitely top notch, were placed second to his skin colour. And as I write this, the rugby media are no doubt already sharpening their pencils to question Peter’s credentials again after Australia inflicted a third straight loss on the Boks today. It’s their second straight defeat at home in the Tri-Nations, and effectively rules out any chance of the Boks capturing a third Tri-Nations title.
So the Boks and de Villiers are up against the wall once again, and questions do need to be asked and answered.

Peter de Villiers has repeatedly stressed the need for a new style of rugby based on running the ball, reading the situation and adapting. And herein lies the problem. Yes, South Africa won the Rugby World Cup on a conservative game plan: solid defence, scrums and lineouts. Bryan Habana, the dazzling top try scorer of the tournament, didn’t even get a touch on the ball. I admit hands up it wasn’t the most entertaining game of rugby ever. But let’s not forget what it did – it won the top prize in rugby. Throughout the tournament, with the exception of the final, South Africa played what I consider to be rugby at its finest. We scored lots of tries and we were very physical and created a good advertisement of the game. We were the most experienced Bok outfit of all time with 668 caps between the players. You think of who was in the final, and you have some real greats of the game: Os du Randt, CJ van der Linde, John Smit (South Africa’s leading captain), Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha (the most experienced lock combo), Schalk Burger and Juan Smith, Fourie du Preez and Butch James, Bryan Habana, Francois Steyn, JP Pietersen, Percy Montgomery (South Africa’s top points scorer and most capped player). Put simply into two words; we were f**king brilliant. If you think England even had a smidgeon of a chance against this colossus of a team, you clearly don’t know squat.

So, I don’t think it was/is wise for de Villiers to change to a radically different approach to the game. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with expanding one’s horizons, and I totally respect de Villiers for that. But a leopard can’t change his spots and start hunting with his tail. Springbok sides have always done well with a physical approach to the game and a defence plan aimed to literally suffocate the opposition. Every Springbok coach who has come in and spoken about a new game plan or a new approach has gone up s**t creek. Jake White was so successful because he went back to the fundamentals. He went back to the old school playing that made the Springboks so legendary in the last century. To be honest, the World Cup final was the only tarnish on that way of playing. I’m not saying the Boks necessarily have to go back to that mentality. De Villiers was right to say it’s too late to go back. I’m glad he has faith in his new plan, because it can work. It musn’t be made to work, but it will come with time and practice. But let’s not forget what won us a Tri-Nations, a World Cup and a 69% win record. Conservatism and structure must have a place in de Villiers’ new path.

South Africa’s performance in the Tri-Nations has not exactly been a great ad for de Villiers’ new era. There were other things that were wrong with our performances, which I will detail, but the Boks seem to be caught between mantras and generally tended to look confused and disorganised. But this will easily be remedied with time and consistency. That’s the key word here. Apart from other things, consistency was what made Jake White one of the most successful Bok coaches of all time. He knew who his best players were and he played them as often as possible. The fact that the team which played in the final has 668 caps between them speaks that fact.

If there has been a highlight of this Tri-Nations so far, it was the 30-28 win in Dunedin which ended the All Blacks formidable record there, and their first loss to the Boks there in a century. And to all the rugby writers who say Ricky Januarie won that game, I say this. Did you actually watch the whole game? South Africa led 17-15 for a large portion of that game, and played some fine rugby throughout. We were solid in the scrums and lineouts. To everyone who says it was an understrength All Black squad, I say this. Did Dan Carter play? Did Ma’a Nonu play? Did Conrad Smith play? Did Ali Williams play? It was still a strong squad, despite the absence of the mercurial Richie McCaw. Had he played, the result might have been different. But then things went a bit wrong.

We should have continued the momentum with that win and kept consistency, aside from ringing in the changes that were necessary for injuries and Bismarck du Plessis’ suspension. Percy Montgomery and Joe van Niekerk did well against the All Blacks and should have started instead of being relegated in favour of Conrad Jantjes and Pierre Spies. Francois Steyn played inside centre at the World Cup and did a fantastic job, so why was he on the outside? Don’t get me wrong, Jantjes is a talented guy, but against the All Blacks, South Africa (with Percy) looked more composed and settled. Plus, Spies seems to show his machine-like qualities better when he comes off the bench, as he did against the Poms last year in Bloemfontein and Pretoria. Again, there were some positives against Australia, but I think we failed to do the basics right and keep our team changes to a minimum.

I don’t think that mid-week game against a very flat Argentina did the Boks any favours, mostly because we were too loose and disorganised. But the big thing that cost us against the All Blacks in Cape Town was our focus. We were more focused on Percy Montgomery’s 100th test cap than the fact that the All Blacks were hellbent on revenge after the 30-28 defeat in Dunedin. You could tell that they were determined to win by any means necessary. Had South Africa been a bit more solid in defence, and not done silly things like Jean de Villiers’ wild pass to Keven Mealamu, the score may have stood at a more respectable 5-0. But again, the Boks seemed lost on styles and seem confused and loose. And we also got the fundamentals wrong as well.

And as I write this, the knives are already coming out for Peter de Villiers. I imagine the media vampires will be bloodsucking the fact that the Boks were booed off the field at Durban today. Which I think is absolutely f**king stupid and totally unfair on the Boks. I’m a patriot. I support South Africa and feel bad when they lose, but imagine how they must feel being booed by their own fans. De Villiers might be struggling to implement his plan, but booing makes no sense. As for the media (especially the South African rugby media), it will be back to bashing de Villiers without actually coming up with any concrete plans to solve South Africa’s current issues on the field.

If you think this blog is designed to slate Peter de Villiers, you are sadly mistaken. The guy has my 100% support and I have faith in his vision. He has tremendous potential, but we need to get the basics right. We need to go back to the fundamentals of Springbok rugby and start being more consistent in selections. Percy is a tremendous boon to the squad, but de Villiers must now start looking to groom Jantjes as his choice fullback. He also has to make a choice over flyhalf. Should we start preparing Francois Steyn for the Number 10 slot in New Zealand 2011, or stick with Butch James? And where does that leave Peter Grant? What about Number 8? Big Joe, Spies and Ryan Kankowski have all proven their worth, but who should start and who should come off the bench? And what about our tight five? Is CJ, John and Gurthro Steenkamp the front row for 2011, or do we throw the likes of Tendai Mtawarira and Brian Mujati into the mix? There’s also Andries Bekker, Schalk Britz and Bismarck du Plessis who’ve all proven themselves. And of course, there’s the question of the irrepressible Luke Watson. Do we stick with Schalk Burger and Juan Smith or do we look to Watson as our own Richie McCaw? These are all selection issues that de Villiers needs to address. The good news is that it’s an issue that says more about the abundance of talent in South Africa than a lack thereof.

I want to go on record as saying that de Villiers has the potential to be very successful, but we need to start getting the very basics right. Eliminate mistakes and ill-discipline, put structures in place and be consistent. It’s still too early to judge whether his vision works or not. Besides, a year before the World Cup, the Boks were thrashed 49-0 by the Aussies. Nobody knew that the same plan that lost us that game would win us the tournament.

By the way, that isn’t me.