Football governance non-interference is false

With the ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher to the leadership of the United Kingdom in 1975, a doctrine emerged and was spread internationally on how the economy was to be managed.

This is what we now know as neoliberalism. The key idea was that the big state is the problem. Thatcher and the neoliberals reasoned that the best way to bring about progress is to adopt private sector governance principles to the public sector.

The state must retreat and have as little a role to play in the economy beyond the creation of an "enabling environment" for the private sector to grow.

The problems, they reckoned, would be solved by what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand of the market."

Western societies that abhorred non-evidence and concepts akin to African spirituality actually believed in this imaginary ghost that is responsible for distributing rewards once the state has retreated. The private sector thrived under Thatcher and her doctrine. Things such as outsourcing of tasks to the private sector, which were previously performed by civil servants, became the norm.

Neoliberalism was swallowed uncritically and became an international economic instrument that was also used by international financial institutions as a condition for finance. States, particularly in the developing world, were asked to cut back on their social spending and focus on exports, amongst other reform conditionalities that included privatisation.

Very few actually analysed, particularly in the developing world and weak states such as Namibia, the reasons why the United Kingdom under Thatcher adopted neoliberalism in the first place.

By 1975, the country had just experienced an economic recession and an industrial strike dubbed "the winter of discontent". Her target, as a policy response and in line with the capitalist principles of the Conservative Party, was to target unions and bring about privilege for the private sector.

Her neoliberal policies led to serious consequences for the country. When she took over in 1975, there were just slightly over one million people out of work. This number increased to more than three million by 1983.

In Africa, the consequences were even more pronounced. Countries such as Zambia that waited for the "invincible hand" to distribute rewards from their copper soon discovered why the hand is called invincible with the fall of commodity prices that plunged the country into chaos. The once-popular Kenneth Kaunda and his UNIP lost power.

Although neoliberalism persisted through the western hegemony, its worst impact was experienced during the 2008 global crisis of capitalism that is wrongly called the "global financial crisis".

This was a defining moment that made many realise the false consciousness of neoliberalism. In response to the crisis, states started doing what neoliberalism stood against: getting involved in the economy.

Several states started bailing out private companies not for any reason but to avoid these companies from collapsing, which would’ve led to a deepening unemployment crisis.

All these responses were unthinkable in the 1970s and 1980s, when neoliberalism was at its peak. Had there been critical analysis and response to neoliberalism before its evangelism, it is possible that its negative impacts on the world economy could’ve been avoided.

This brings us to the point of this column today. For a number of years, we have been led to believe that international football rules do not allow government or political intervention in football affairs. The result is that the country would be banned from participation.

As a consequence, football functionaries have been allowed to do as they please – creating a mafioso and strongman scenario – who must be pleased for football to take place. It has now been five years without professional football in our country.

Fifa, a world football governing body that terrifies our weak leaders and those who have bought into the ‘non-interference’ narrative, just like those who bought into neoliberalism, has failed to decisively solve our football problems.

It appointed one "normalisation committee" after another "normalisation committee". It would seem that on either side, the mafioso was always able to capture this or other "normalisation committee".

The "normalisation committee" has not been able to normalise anything. If anything, signs are beginning to show that one mafioso that was put down by the former "normalisation committee" is beginning to capture the new "normalisation committee". Like the fight against drug addiction, the signs are that football will relapse to where it was five years ago.

Consider what happened when the war in Ukraine started; the UK decided to intervene in football by clamping down on the ownership of Chelsea by one of Vladimir Putin’s allies.

Players were allowed to comment on the war as long as they were anti-Putin. Fifa did nothing, nor did it suspend anyone. Can they afford to suspect English football? This non-interference is false. If we had brave leaders, unlike the 81-year-old president and 76-year-old sports minister, we would intervene for our children. The blame is squarely on weak leadership that believes in non-interference nonsense.

This lot can allow people to die just because of their acceptance and belief in nonsense.

Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter.