Word on the streets is that FIFA is considering banning the Vuvuzela from stadia during the 2010 World Cup matches in South Africa? Apparently European television stations, and one Xavi Alonso, have complained that the Vuvuzela is "noisy".
One normally associates noise complaints with, say, sleepy neighbours angrily asking that you turn down the music at 01:37am on a Sunday morning. Or some nutcase blaring loud music through their inconspicuous white iPod headphones in a library, while you desperately try to swot for your Quantum Physics exam.
But complaining about noise in a 50,000 seater football stadium during a match is pushing it. Surely this is far within the borders of ridiculous! It is a football game for Pete's sake, not a convention for the Noise Abatement Society!
So what exactly is a Vuvuzela? This is a question worth answering to give perspective to its defense. Wikipedia describes it simply as an "air horn" which "emits a monotonous noise like a deep foghorn or an elephant".
Since a stadium is not exactly an opera house with an elegantly dressed conductor directing an orchestra, the collective tune of 50,000 Vuvuzelas from excited football fans generates an interesting dissonance. There is no rhythm. Instead, the tune is thoroughly disjointed and off-key, yet it impressively captures the massive euphoria of a football match in South Africa. The sound - the atmosphere - cannot be described, it can only be experienced, and nothing could represent the ebullient essence of South African football better.
As a matter of fact, in many ways the Vuvuzela has transcended the stands of the football grounds. It now actually represents the sound of joy, celebration and merriment in other spheres of hard working South Africans lives! I remember a number of years ago when a major accounting firm I worked for in Johannesburg won a very significant public sector contract, the serenity of the beautiful open plan office usually punctuated only by the sound of mouse clicks and a water fountain, was joyfully disrupted by the sound of a Vuvuzela! Clearly a call for celebration.
Some genius from the Corporate Finance department of that company even made it a point to signal big wins by filling up his lungs then expelling all 5 litres of its air into a yellow Vuvuzela, resulting in an awesome tune of a win! For that company, and I imagine many others too, the Vuvuzela was indeed the official sound of success!
Come to think of it, there is not a mass celebratory event in South Africa these days that does not include the distinctive sound of the Vuvuzela. From New Year celebrations to political rallies. The Vuvuzela was especially loudest on Saturday, 15 May 2004 - the day FIFA announced South Africa would host the 2010 World Cup. The soundtrack to the mass jubilation was the Vuvuzela!
Such irony, then, that FIFA would even consider banning it during 2010 World Cup matches.
Football without the Vuvuzela in South Africa can only be compared to, perhaps, cutting off hands at the wrists and expecting claps? Sep Blatter defended it best when he said, "It's noisy, it's energy, rhythm, music, dance, drums. This is Africa. We have to adapt a little."
I actually believe there are more distracting things on the pitch that footballers comfortably contend with all the time. Not least the abusive language from fans and for some especially in the English Premiere League, Petr Cech's loudly orange jersey!
If European TV stations and that Xavi Alonso really want "peace and quiet" during a football match, they should restrict their matches to the Cockfosters Benedictine Monastery ... during a laryngitis outbreak!
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Dora - back in, Political timing - out!
For a typical Zambian day, June 17, 2009 has certainly had a more than usual level of political activity.
A few hours after Judge Phillip Musonda found that the Dennis Chirwa tribunal exercised "excessive jurisdiction when it invoked Article 54 sub-section 3 to declare Ms. Siliya in breach of the constitution," President Banda appointed her Minister of Education.
Zambia is not known for such expediency, not especially with anything Government related! One or two people I know would certainly wish ZESCO reacted with similar haste in resolving power failures? Unsurprisingly, reaction to the news of Dora Siliya's reappointment to Cabinet was instant! It was especially evident on social networking sites and the blogosphere.
One of the more poignant status updates on facebook read - "It is futile to believe our leaders will understand that legal decisions are seldom in line with political legitimacy or acceptability..."
Really?
The question that begs to be answered is whether it is always in a society's interest for its leaders to seek first political "legitimacy and acceptability"? Political legitimacy and acceptability are, in politics at least, rather fuzzy notions that cannot empirically be determined to be universal. What I may consider legitimate and acceptable may be reprehensible for the next citizen? A Harvey Milk, for example, may certainly think so?
It is only reasonable then, that an appropriate perspective is applied to the developments of the day. As I recall, the Dennis Chirwa tribunal was appointed to "probe alleged breach of Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act by Minister of Communications and Transport, Dora Siliya."
When it made its finding known, most so-called pundits and pub legal eagles were of the view that the tribunal's findings were ambiguous. However, the "universal" opinion was that Dora Siliya had been found in breach of the constitution by disregarding legal advice from the Attorney General. It is against this opinion that Ms. Siliya applied for judicial review challenging the "Tribunals' powers to invoke constitutional provisions which are a preserve of the High Court."
Under the circumstances, applying for a Judicial Review was well within her rights. This is especially true in a supposedly just society as is Zambia. The idea, one would like to believe, is for an accused to have the right to defend oneself, and if successful, be absolved of the charge. The implication of Judge Musonda's ruling earlier in the day is that she is fully absolved of the charge.
It would seem hypocritical to laud a judicial process only when the outcomes are punitive to the defendant. Surely Judge Musonda's ruling was not beyond the comprehension of Dora Siliya's protagonists. If Dora Siliya was not in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, surely she now qualifies for consideration and reappointment to Ministerial office?
I suspect it would be a dangerous double standard to refuse to recognise her innocence in the matter simply because she once stood accused.
Why then would this seemingly logical sequence of events raise the ire of many. One word - timing!
The combination of a mistimed appointment - shortly following the ruling - and the unforgiving court of public opinion where Dora Siliya, it appears, remains guilty, and possibly perceived to be incompetent, means this has been a political faux pas by President Banda!
It is conceivable that easing her slowly back into Government would have resulted in possibly less outrage. What would it have hurt had she been re-appointed after, say, 3 months once the matter had played itself out, and the public attention had moved on as it always does.
Undoubtedly this matter will be fodder for debate in the coming days. The question is, should President Banda have fashioned his decision to reappoint Dora Siliya to cabinet on the court of public opinion, as some would have hoped? Certainly a more interesting debate is whether Presidential appointments to Cabinet should be subject to Parliamentary approval?
A few hours after Judge Phillip Musonda found that the Dennis Chirwa tribunal exercised "excessive jurisdiction when it invoked Article 54 sub-section 3 to declare Ms. Siliya in breach of the constitution," President Banda appointed her Minister of Education.
Zambia is not known for such expediency, not especially with anything Government related! One or two people I know would certainly wish ZESCO reacted with similar haste in resolving power failures? Unsurprisingly, reaction to the news of Dora Siliya's reappointment to Cabinet was instant! It was especially evident on social networking sites and the blogosphere.
One of the more poignant status updates on facebook read - "It is futile to believe our leaders will understand that legal decisions are seldom in line with political legitimacy or acceptability..."
Really?
The question that begs to be answered is whether it is always in a society's interest for its leaders to seek first political "legitimacy and acceptability"? Political legitimacy and acceptability are, in politics at least, rather fuzzy notions that cannot empirically be determined to be universal. What I may consider legitimate and acceptable may be reprehensible for the next citizen? A Harvey Milk, for example, may certainly think so?
It is only reasonable then, that an appropriate perspective is applied to the developments of the day. As I recall, the Dennis Chirwa tribunal was appointed to "probe alleged breach of Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act by Minister of Communications and Transport, Dora Siliya."
When it made its finding known, most so-called pundits and pub legal eagles were of the view that the tribunal's findings were ambiguous. However, the "universal" opinion was that Dora Siliya had been found in breach of the constitution by disregarding legal advice from the Attorney General. It is against this opinion that Ms. Siliya applied for judicial review challenging the "Tribunals' powers to invoke constitutional provisions which are a preserve of the High Court."
Under the circumstances, applying for a Judicial Review was well within her rights. This is especially true in a supposedly just society as is Zambia. The idea, one would like to believe, is for an accused to have the right to defend oneself, and if successful, be absolved of the charge. The implication of Judge Musonda's ruling earlier in the day is that she is fully absolved of the charge.
It would seem hypocritical to laud a judicial process only when the outcomes are punitive to the defendant. Surely Judge Musonda's ruling was not beyond the comprehension of Dora Siliya's protagonists. If Dora Siliya was not in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, surely she now qualifies for consideration and reappointment to Ministerial office?
I suspect it would be a dangerous double standard to refuse to recognise her innocence in the matter simply because she once stood accused.
Why then would this seemingly logical sequence of events raise the ire of many. One word - timing!
The combination of a mistimed appointment - shortly following the ruling - and the unforgiving court of public opinion where Dora Siliya, it appears, remains guilty, and possibly perceived to be incompetent, means this has been a political faux pas by President Banda!
It is conceivable that easing her slowly back into Government would have resulted in possibly less outrage. What would it have hurt had she been re-appointed after, say, 3 months once the matter had played itself out, and the public attention had moved on as it always does.
Undoubtedly this matter will be fodder for debate in the coming days. The question is, should President Banda have fashioned his decision to reappoint Dora Siliya to cabinet on the court of public opinion, as some would have hoped? Certainly a more interesting debate is whether Presidential appointments to Cabinet should be subject to Parliamentary approval?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
