Playing The Enemy is a journalistic popular narrative of the impact of the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship in forming a post-Apartheid South African nationalism, and the efforts of Nelson Mandela embracing white dominated rugby in order to avert a civil war. John Carlin, who is a longtime British journalist, centered the story on Nelson Mandela’s journey from resistance fighter, to longtime political prisoner who was the symbol of Apartheid repression, to the President of a fledgling multiracial state which could move either to factional war or forward as a nation. While an entertaining narrative written in a classical journalistic style, aimed for public consumption as opposed to academic study, its lack of sources throw into question some of its basic arguments, as one cannot confirm nor deny his assertions. Since the point of popular nonfiction narratives is to provide an entertaining story set in the real world, writers are free to take some liberties or exaggerate. Some of Carlin’s assertions, at the gut level, seem to be in this category, as well as his overall conclusions about South Africa’s problems since the 1995 game. As a book, it is an undeniable example of the connections between the importance of sports in forming imagined communities, and shifting notions of social progress. As Mandela asserted, sport have the power more than governments to break down racial barriers (3).
Carlin argued that Nelson Mandela, while in prison, made an effort to know his enemy, and learned Afrikaaner history, culture, and language, and realized that rugby was what glued Afrikaaner people together. Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) pushed for a boycott of all things South African, especially its national teams, and especially its national rugby team, the Springboks, whose green jersey colors were as much representative of Apartheid as the old South African flag and national anthem. When Mandela became President, Carlin argued that he realized how close South Africa was to a civil war, as heavily armed right-wing Afrikaaner militias and members of the military threatened to overthrow the newly elected ANC dominated government or carve out an Afrikaaner state. Though only 10% of the population, the fact that they were heavily armed and financed meant that they had the power to make or turn South Africa into a wartorn hellscape. Mandela sought to make a multiracial South African nationalism by pushing for black South Africans to embrace the same Springboks in the Rugby World Cup which had been heavily protested and boycotted. He met regularly with the mostly apolitical white members of the team, who by the end see him as much a part of their team as any other, and Mandela wears the green jersey and Springbock cap during the run. By embracing their former enemies, the teeth of anger at the loss of privilege is numbed since white South Africans see black South Africans rooting for their team. The final victory is one shared by nearly all South Africans.
Divided into time periods providing the background, two thirds of the book is a setup for the 1995 World Cup, in explaining how the moment was a true crossroads, which could have led easily to war. The book, as many journalist narratives do, follow a number of individuals throughout besides Mandela. Justice Bekebeka was a longtime black nationalist ANC operative who was one of the few South Africans, he noted, that refused to embrace the Springboks, as he had forgiven enough. The embrace of the green jersey was something he could not do, which made him a lonely man on game day. Niel Barnard was a Afrikaaner intelligence director who had defended the old regime but realized it was untenable and began working towards transition to the new, which made him as a hard defender of post-Apartheid as he had been of Apartheid. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is a sort of a backdrop of a longtime Anglican bishop who pushed for nonviolent boycotts to fight Apartheid. Francois Pienaar is the captain of the Springboks, described as a typical apolitical Afrikaaner who always voted Nat (the Nationalist Party, the ruling Apartheid party dominated by Afrikaaners.) Linga Moonsamy was a former ANC guerilla who became the head of the Presidential protection unit, tasked with guarding Mandela. He was on hand as a stadium of 62,000 Boers, described as rednecks with khaki clothes, potbellies, and Budweisor drinkers, chanted “Nelson! Nelson!” and sang Shosholoza, the new South African national anthem, which had originally been a black protest song.
The book quite well set up that scene, as since the mid 1980s, South Africa steadily moved towards war, as it sent the military into villages to suppress protest and revolt, and right-wing Afrikaaners moved to balkanize South Africa if the Apartheid state was untenable. By combining the symbol of Mandela with the symbol of Springbok, he helped create the post-Apartheid state nationalism. Carlin’s thesis is summed up nicely, “For decades Mandela had stood for everything white South Africa most feared; the Springbok jersey had been the symbol, for even longer, of everything black South Africans most hated. Now suddenly, before the eyes of the whole of South Africa, and much of the world, the two negative symbols had merged to create a new one that was positive, constructive, and good. Mandela had wrought the transformation, becoming the embodiment not of hate and fear, but generosity and love” (223). Mandela had that unifying quality, where he sought out human commonality, which he believed sports to be a bridge between people of vastly different positions and backgrounds.
Besides lacking the academic rigor of having checkable sources, Carlin overplayed how much rugby united South Africa over the long term. While it certainly helped alleviate a critical period after the ascension of the ANC through the 1994 election, which met their basic demand of “one person, one vote”, one day of sports unity will not restructure overall racial bigotry, to say nothing of racial institutions, which will take at least a few generations to change. Carlin hinted at the bigger problems of post-Apartheid South Africa, that of deep poverty, the AIDS epidemic, widespread violent crime, and corruption as being the standard problems of any country as opposed to the racist brute of international relations, which seems to be somewhat of a cop-out. He never mentioned the extreme neoliberal embrace of the ANC, which embraced the IMF and World Bank’s edicts that it privatize as much as possible to bring investment to South Africa, which, as it has in much of the world, actually deepened the poverty of the country. Mandela, while a man of deep reverence and vision, is but one man, and it usually takes decades, if not centuries, to rectify systemic, informal oppressions without the violent birth pangs of revolution.
Carlin’s work has become very popular after Invictus premiered, which is based on Playing The Enemy. It is a story, as Carlin related, that is easily transferable to a fictionalized narrative. The serious historian should be troubled by the lack of sources in Carlin’s book, yet one cannot deny that he captured a pivotable moment of unity and possibility within South African history. Where the academic historian may overlook this moment, the journalist may overplay and romanticize the same moment. Is this where the sports historian comes in, making the links between social, cultural, political, and standard histories? What lessons from journalism, besides writing well, can an academic take away? I fear that historians will often throw out the baby with the bathwater in dismissing books like Carlin’s, which are clearly very popular, even if it is rightfully criticized for sources that are not accountable, which private interviews seldomly are. The accessibility of works like Carlin’s, which is the best selling rugby book in history, points to the necessity of engaging with strategies that journalists use.