Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Celebrities Protest at Trump Tower After Outrageous Press Conference

Last night, Michael Moore invited the audience that attended his Broadway play “The Terms of My Surrender,” featuring Mark Ruffalo, to join them at a protest outside the Trump Tower in New York. He then bussed 200 people in double-decker buses over to the tower and encouraged the rest of the audience to walk over. The protest was also a vigil in honor of counter-protester Heather Heyer. Ruffalo opened with a speech urging people to say her name. Actors Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge joined the protest right after they finished their Broadway show, “1984,” and led some chants.

.@MMFlint and @MarkRuffalo are leading a Trump Tower protest with #1984Play‘s Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge in tow https://t.co/PFfJ08I54a pic.twitter.com/rqf62i5qwS

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) August 16, 2017

The outrage aimed at President Donald Trump increased yesterday, after he defended his initial remarks regarding Charlottesville, when he said that “many sides” were responsible for the violence. Yesterday, he repeated that claim, and said the “alt-left” groups that attended the rally were “very, very violent” and that the blame is on “both sides.” People were shocked by the callous comments, and former KKK leader David Duke thanked the president on Twitter.

No words. https://t.co/pCSYUE5iZN

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) August 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, South African President Jacob Zuma publicly indicated that he might endorse his ex-wife to be the next leader of his party, the African National Congress. Zuma will soon be finishing his term as the head of the party and rumors indicate that he may even end his term as president early amid calls for him to step down. The reason for his potential exit stems from a number of controversies that have reached a fever pitch in the country after he has led the party once run by Nelson Mandela for more than a decade. Read on to find out more about the legacy of the ANC, its current leadership, and how the myriad scandals engulfing President Zuma could affect the party going forward.

The African National Congress

The ANC or African National Congress, now headed by Jacob Zuma and once led by the luminary Nelson Mandela, started back in 1912. Originally, the party was known as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) and was founded with the hope of achieving equality for the majority black population of South Africa (it was renamed the ANC in 1923). Despite growing pains, due to limited funds and internal squabbles, the party endured and rose to prominence in response to Apartheid, which fueled political activism.

In 1961, the party moved beyond activism and started a military wing known as Spear of the Nation or MK. The military branch waged war with the South African Apartheid government with support from sympathetic African nations and from the Soviet Union. Apartheid finally ended in 1994 and the ANC quickly came to dominate the first few elections up through the early 2000s. But the party’s grasp on power began to slip with the election of Jacob Zuma in 2009, and it slipped further with his reelection in 2014.

Nelson Mandela

One of the key figures in the rise and eventual dominance of the ANC was Nelson Mandela, who joined the party in 1944. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, he played an instrumental role in many of the party’s major programs–including the ANC Youth League, its Defiance Campaign, and the Freedom Charter Campaign–until his arrest following the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre. After his release and acquittal in an earlier treason trial in the mid-1950s, he led the formation of the MK and was its first Commander-in-Chief. He was arrested again in 1962 and sentenced to five years in prison for incitement and illegally leaving the country when he traveled to Botswana. However, when police discovered his diary detailing his plans for armed conflict, he was infamously sentenced to life in prison on Robben Island in 1964.

Mandela spent the next 27 years in prison. When he was finally released in 1990 the ANC was also removed from the list of banned parties following domestic and global pressure on the Apartheid government. In 1991, he ascended to become the leader of the ANC after two separate stints as its deputy president in the 1950s and 1980s. In 1994, Mandela was elected president of South Africa in an unopposed election. He retired from the post in 1999 and was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki, who had already assumed Mandela’s role as president of the ANC in 1997.

The video below goes into more detail about Nelsen Mandela’s life:

While serving as President of both the ANC and the nation, Mbeki would famously dismiss current South African President Jacob Zuma from his position as the country’s Deputy President in 2005 after he was implicated in a bribery scandal. This led to a split in the party, however, Zuma would ultimately prevail–taking over the ANC in 2007 and the presidency in 2009, while essentially forcing Mbeki into retirement.

Zuma’s Many Controversies

Jacob Zuma was a decidedly different leader than Mandela, although their paths converged in several key instances. Unlike Mandela, a trained lawyer, Zuma was born into poverty to a single mother and had no formal schooling. When he was just 17 he joined the ANC’s militant branch led by Mandela. He was imprisoned alongside Mandela and went into exile in Mozambique after he was released. In 1990, he returned and participated in the discussions that brought about the end of the Apartheid government. Zuma’s everyman appeal and his adherence to traditional African norms made him popular. These traits proved to be the deciding factors in his rise to power and in his dispute with former President Mbeki, whom he helped force to resign in 2008.

While Zuma shared the charisma of Mandela, he has differed in his inability to avoid controversy. Long before he became president, he was embroiled in a bribery scandal concerning a large arms deal in the late 1990s. While the case was eventually dropped almost 10 years later by the country’s National Prosecution Authority, it was done under dubious circumstances and just before he was elected president. The circumstances were so suspicious that a campaign to reopen the case continues today.

Zuma also attracted negative press when he took money from the South African government to make lavish additions to his home, although he promised to pay back the loans. The country’s highest court actually ruled in 2016 that his actions were unconstitutional, forcing him to apologize and promise again to pay back the loans. Even his personal life has been controversial, as he adheres to a Zulu tradition of polygamy and has four wives and 21 children. Some of his children have come from extra-marital affairs, and in one of those cases, he was accused of rape, although he was ultimately acquitted.

Zuma’s Time in Office

Despite his frequent scandals, Zuma did have one notably large accomplishment during his time in office. He oversaw a restructuring of the country’s AIDS policies, which made HIV medication much more easily available to South Africans. This was particularly important given that South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV in the world. This was in stark contrast to the policies put in place under Mbeki, who doubted the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

But Zuma recently has faced even more criticism when he fired the country’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, earlier this year. Gordhan’s firing contributed to Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade South Africa’s credit rating to junk status. The economic situation is particularly relevant because it was one of the issues Zuma had campaigned on as a way to differentiate himself from his predecessor, who he associated with political and economic elites.

Unfortunately for Zuma, the economy has not done him many favors. While it narrowly avoided a recession last year and is projected to grow by 1 percent this year, things are not great. Although the GDP of Africa’s largest economy is growing, its unemployment rate continues to rise and its per capita income is expected to decline. The unemployment rate in South Africa reached a 13-year high of 27.1 percent in 2016.

Consistent scandals and economic hardship have led to a breaking point for Zuma. Efforts are currently underway to hold a vote of no-confidence by secret ballot. Although Zuma has managed to survive past votes of no-confidence, they have never been done through secret balloting, which could give members of his own party cover to vote against him. A march in support of the secret ballot also took place recently in Johannesburg. Some have suggested that Zuma may endorse his ex-wife in an attempt to secure a pardon from the next president. An endorsement could also ensure that he continues to have political influence even after he leaves his post.

What’s Next for South Africa?

Since the end of Apartheid and the beginning of democracy in South Africa, the ANC has never been out of power. However, after the party lost elections in several key metro areas for the first time last year, that streak may be coming to an end. Specifically, in the area of Gauteng, traditionally an ANC stronghold, a private survey showed a drop of more than 10 percent in the party’s public support following Zuma’s latest round of controversies. Although it is impossible to point to the exact cause of that drop, the survey results indicated that the recent scandals played an important role in last year’s local elections.

With upcoming elections, the party must now consider something once considered impossible, the need to form a coalition government in the absence of a clear majority. Despite the seemingly endless stream of controversies following Zuma, the ANC has so far refused to call on him to resign, although many have criticized his decision to fire the finance minister.

The video below looks at the current challenges facing the ANC:

Conclusion

The African National Congress came to prominence while challenging the Apartheid government in South Africa. It became the leading party in the country for the black majority and stood in opposition to the white minority ruling party. The ANC was eventually led by Nelson Mandela, a man who literally embodied this struggle. Upon his release from prison and subsequent election, the ANC appeared to have unquestioned dominance in South African politics.

Nevertheless, that dominance has begun to show signs of waning. Several municipalities have already voted the ANC out of power and now it must learn to develop coalitions, a challenge that it has never really had to deal with before but must already grapple with at the local level. Part of this can be attributed to the party achieving, at least to some degree, many of its original goals. But a much larger problem is the political capital lost by Jacob Zuma, the party’s current leader  and president of the country. Zuma’s endless scandals and provocative nature appear to finally have worn thin on the voters. The transition of power in Africa’s largest economy and one of its most politically stable since the end of Apartheid bears watching. Even if the ANC retains its dominance, a change of the guard seems to be coming sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The ANC After Zuma: What’s Next for South Africa? appeared first on Law Street.

The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

Former double-amputee Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius is a “broken man” and is unfit to testify at his sentencing for murder, according to the defense’s clinical psychologist. Today marks the last week of Pistorius’ highly publicized sentencing trial in South Africa, and a final sentence will be announced by Friday.

Dr. Jonathan Scholtz said Pistorius suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and putting him in jail would only worsen his mental state. Instead, Scholtz suggested that Pistorius be sentenced to community service or be hospitalized.

“Since the offence he has developed a serious psychiatric condition which has become worse over the past two years,” Scholtz said. He also argued that Pistorius did not pose a threat to society, and further incarceration “would not be psychologically or socially constructive.”

Here is a play-by-play of the hearing:

Oscar Pistorius is ‘broken’ and should be in hospital, sentencing hearing told https://t.co/p42Avg8KM4

— Guardian news (@guardiannews) June 13, 2016

In case you missed it, Pistorius was sentenced in 2013 for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. He said he thought she was an intruder–shooting her through the bathroom door four times.

Since the incident, Pistorius has sold all of his firearms and is still traumatized by the sound of them, according to Scholtz. The prosecution didn’t buy it. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested that Pistorius felt sorry for himself and had not shown true remorse. Nel also questioned Scholtz’s claim that Pistorius was unfit to testify, stating he was perfectly fine to do an interview recently with a local television station about the killing.

Pistorius received some harsh backlash on Twitter for being labeled as unfit to testify.

Dear @OscarPistorius me and most people I know have ‘not being rich anxiety disorder’. Please give us your money to help us overcome this

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) June 13, 2016

So murderers (Oscar Pistorius) and rapists (Brock Turner) shouldn’t go to jail bc it’ll impact them emotionally. When did jail become a spa?

— AL (@MissSchliez) June 13, 2016

Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide in October 2014, which carries a five year sentence and is similar to manslaughter in the United States. After serving a year in prison, he was released on house arrest. However, because of his athlete-celebrity status, he was unsurprisingly not treated the same as the rest of the prisoners. During his time in jail, he stayed  in a private cell in the hospital wing and he spent his time on house arrest kicking it at his uncle’s mansion. In December 2015, his conviction was changed to murder in the Supreme Court of Appeals, which decided that whoever was behind the door was irrelevant because Pistorius should have known that pulling the trigger would cause death.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, but a judge can pare it down depending on the circumstances. Prosecutors and Steenkamp’s family argued at the trial that Pistorius deliberately killed her after an argument, so they are working to ensure he receives the full 15 year punishment. However, Scholtz described Pistorius’s relationship with his girlfriend as “normal” and “loving” with “no signs of abuse or coercion.” Pistorius tried to overturn the upgraded murder charge earlier this year, but failed, which is why a new sentencing hearing was called this week.

Steenkamp was 29 when she was killed, an up-and-coming model, a law school graduate, and a budding reality TV star.

Pistorius, known as the “Blade Runner” for his carbon-fiber prosthetic legs, is known globally for being able to compete against able-bodied athletes, especially during the 2012 London Olympics. He has also competed in three Paralympics.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is presiding over the hearing—the same judge who originally convicted Pistorius.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defense Psychologist Calls Oscar Pistorius A “Broken Man,” Unfit To Testify appeared first on Law Street.

The case of Oscar Pistorius, the world-famous South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete, has been highly contentious since its beginning. On Valentine’s Day 2013, Pistorius shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his home, through a locked bathroom door. His defense team claimed he thought she was an intruder and was trying to defend himself. What followed was a flurry of speculation over whether or not the fatal shooting was an accident or intentional; the case was only made even more public by Pistorius’s star status. In 2014, Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide–essentially manslaughter. But the prosecutors argued that a culpable homicide verdict didn’t go far enough, and an appeals court just overturned that decision to instead find Pistorius guilty of murder. Now, the sprinter is most likely headed back to prison, and the case may be headed further down the line to South Africa’s Constitutional Court.

The appeal that landed Pistorius back in prison is as seemingly complicated as the case itself. The appeals court that overturned the culpable homicide charge and instead found Pistorius guilty of murder didn’t have an issue with the lower court’s interpretation of the facts of the case, but rather its interpretation of the law. Whether or not Pistorius was guilty or not rested on a concept in the South African justice system called dolus eventualis. It’s defined as “awareness of the likely outcome of an action”–essentially, did Pistorius know what was going to happen when he shot into that bathroom door.

The original court judgment ruled that because he didn’t know that it was Steenkamp behind the door, dolus eventualis didn’t apply. But Judge Eric Leach, of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal, ruled that that judgment was a misinterpretation of the legal principle. According to Leach, it didn’t matter if Pistorius knew that it was Steenkamp behind that door, it matters that he knew someone was behind that door, and firing into would likely result in the death of that person. According to CNN:

It was ‘common sense’ that Pistorius must have known he was carrying out a potentially lethal act that ‘gambled with life’ when he fired his gun through the closed toilet door, [Leach] said.

Now, Pistorius’s team may take the case to the next level for one final appeal in front of the highest court in South Africa–the Constitutional Court. In the meantime, he’s expected to remain under the house arrest he was released to this fall while he waits for a new sentencing hearing. Given that the minimum sentence in South Africa for murder is fifteen years, he could be going back to prison for a very long time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Found Guilty of Murder by South African Appeals Court appeared first on Law Street.

Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian and double-amputee known as “Blade Runner,” was released from prison last week. In October of 2014 he was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and sentenced to five years in prison. Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to manslaughter, a crime which would have merited more jail time.

Pause for a reminder: Pistorius claimed that the day he “accidentally” killed Steenkamp, he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. Steenkamp was set to give a speech on domestic abuse the day she was killed.

Needless to say, many South Africans (including Steenkamp’s family) do not believe that the athlete mistakenly shot his model/reality star girlfriend. They believe the killing was intentional, and that Pistorius got caught up in his own lies.

Elements of Pistorius’ testimony did not add up with forensic analysts’ findings. According to BBC:

A forensic analyst contradicted Mr Pistorius’ claim that he was wearing his artificial legs when he tried to break open the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising Ms Steenkamp was inside. Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle and location of the marks on the door suggested Mr Pistorius was on his stumps.

If Pistorius lied about not having his prosthetics on, what else did he lie about? Why did he shoot his firearm multiple times if he thought the noises he heard were just an intruder?

Thankfully, Pistorius will not have access to firearms while on house arrest in (ahem) his uncle’s tricked-out mansion. He is also required to attend regular counseling sessions, so long as he is “doing time”–which, as of now, means four more years.

To the American mind, it seems crazy that a man found guilty of being involved in the death of his girlfriend could possibly receive such a lenient sentence. However, under South African law, “an offender sentenced to five years or less in jail can be released to correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of the term—in Pistorius’ case 10 months.” Indeed, Pistorius has served a bit more than one-sixth of his sentence, so it should not come as a shock that he has been released from Kgosi Mampuru II jail in Pretoria, where he was being held.

What should come as a shock is that Pistorius was held in the hospital section of the jail, rather than in the cells with the other 7,000 inmates who are not celebrities or well-known athletes. As past Law Street articles have stated, it is problematic when a celebrity uses his or her status to acquire special treatment while incarcerated. Yes, it is true that Pistorius would have needed additional medical support as an imprisoned double-amputee in jail. However, he received preferential treatment as a celebrity athlete, which unjustly separated him from the rest of the prison community.

Additionally, Pistorius was released a full day earlier than what was announced by the State Department, in order to avoid a media firestorm. Surely no other prisoner would have been afforded the luxury of a 24-hour head-start after their release was already announced. It’s time for South Africa to re-assess its court procedures when dealing with high-profile suspects and prisoners. (Heck, it should also consider overturning the 1969 law that abolished trial by jury.) But hey, some countries have to walk before they can run like a convicted Olympian.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Leaves Prison to Chill at Uncle’s House in South Africa appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

Nigeria recently elected a new president, Muhammadu Buhari, in a prolonged fight for victory against current President Goodluck Jonathan. The election was postponed six weeks due to the instability caused by terrorist group Boko Haram.

Read More: Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change

To assist with stabilizing the region and achieving safety for civilians, Nigeria employed hundreds of South African and former Soviet Union mercenaries to fight Boko Haram. Initially, this was only rumored after pictures and allegations surfaced on social media.

President Jonathan was quoted as saying that two companies provided “trainers and technicians” to help Nigerian forces fight Boko Haram, though he was not specific in names, sources, or firms.

Eeben Barlow, the head of one of the private military companies working in Nigeria, confirmed that South African Defence Forces have aided in the training, equipment, and strategy for Nigerian forces against Boko Haram, as well as camping out in Northern Nigeria to forcibly take back territories.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Barlow’s South African private military firm, Executive Outcomes, has been influential in conflicts in Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho, and South Africa.

Unfortunately there may be an issue here: this is illegal. The 1998 South African Act of Military Assistance Abroad bans its citizens from directly participating in wars in other countries for private gain. They must act in an official capacity under the authority of the government in Pretoria.

The Act is explicit: “Regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident within the Republic, and foreign citizens rendering such assistance from within the borders of the Republic…”

South Africa is not alone. Georgia, which is a also a source of the mercenaries, has laws criminalizing participation in foreign military activities. South African Defense Minister Mapisa-Nqakula has even said that the country should charge the men under the regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.

Laws, policies, and guidelines are drafted and implemented in the name of justice; so would it really be bad if some foreign nationals were paid to fight terrorists? The lack of action or fuss from the international community proves that we’re willing to look the other way in the name of combating terrorism. For now, no action has been taken by or against the foreign mercenaries.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South African Mercenaries Fight Boko Haram in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil is hosting a major international party today and the United States is not invited. While Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — also known as the BRICS countries — socialize and chat each other up about world affairs, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines. But don’t worry — America doesn’t feel left out.

BRICS is the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, countries with prominent global influence and rapidly growing economies. South Africa most recently joined the group in 2010, whereas representatives from the other five began meeting in 2006. Economic experts agree on the importance of these nations’ expanding economies and the roles they will play in the future of global trade and finance.

The BRICS agenda is fascinating, but the issues that will be discussed, according to a panel of experts on the subject hosted by the Brookings Institute last week, are more pertinent to quickly growing global economies, not the already well-established U.S., which is exactly why the country isn’t feeling left out. At least not yet.

Under the glow of fluorescent lights and amid the aroma of free coffee (it always smells better this way, doesn’t it?), the five panelists discussed the upcoming conference in front of an audience ranging from eager youths to seasoned foreign policy experts.

Kenneth G. Lieberthal, an expert on China and author of an impressive 24 books, kicked off the discussion. He, along with the other panelists, explained that the major goal of the nations attending the summit will likely be to establish an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In simpler terms, these countries no longer wish to depend solely on the United States and its allies to take care of global financial dealings and monetary crises. The panelists speculated that China’s steady growth as a world power may provoke the other countries in BRICS to downgrade its status as a member of the group because it no longer has the same concerns about which the foundation of the group was based. This parallels the group’s concerns regarding the United States’ domination of world affairs. For now, however, China is still included in the upcoming Brazil summit.

Ken Lieberthal: the BRICS aim to democratize options for emerging markets thru own bank #BRICS2014. Will they succeed? Can they find it?

— Ashley Miller (@MillerAS) July 11, 2014

Each expert panelist represented a country’s specific agenda. Fiona Hill, a frequent commentator on Russian and Eurasian affairs, emphasized the importance of the BRICS summit for Vladimir Putin. After Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, an action that sparked great disapproval from a number of nations, the country was banished from the G8 summit. Hill thinks that Putin will take advantage of his invitation to the BRICS summit to reestablish Russia’s role as a world power. Hill suggested that nothing concrete will likely come of Russia attending BRICS — the summit is simply a means of “political theater” for Putin.

Tanvi Madan, the expert representative on India, touched on how the country does not agree with the United States’ idea of democracy and identifies more closely with the other countries attending BRICS. More specifically, India holds a long-standing pragmatic relationship with Russia. Madan said the BRICS summit will not affect India’s relationship with the United States. For India, the BRICS summit symbolizes India’s new voice. The summit enables India to express that it wants reform in a variety of institutions including issues, sanctionsm and sovereignty. The BRICS summit offers a way for India to form closer ties with the other countries attending.

Harold Trinkunas, an expert in Latin American politics currently studying Brazil’s emergence as a major power, spoke of Brazil as a key player in the upcoming BRICS summit. Now that the World Cup ended, Brazil passed the torch to Russia for the 2018 Cup and moved on to host the BRICS Summit, which starts today.

Sadly, South Africa was left out of the conversation. As the newest member to the group, it hasn’t yet established its own agenda for the summit. We expect to hear few details about South Africa in comparison to the other member countries.

So, why isn’t the United States concerned about BRICS’ desire to decrease their dependence on Western countries? The panelists agreed that BRICS’ wishes to create an alternative to the International Monetary Fund is not necessarily negative. As noted by Kenneth Lieberthal, the expert on Chinese affairs, the BRICS countries want to create a bank focusing on infrastructure loans. Creating an alternative to the World Bank would increase the capacity for big emerging markets to be less reliant on the United States and Europe. Theoretically, this would allow for greater financial democracy and a more efficient way for countries to solve individual financial crises.

As these alliances grow stronger, we will see if there’s any mortar in the BRICS. The United States isn’t too concerned about any of the potential outcomes from this agenda — but only time will tell.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) & Marisa Motosek (@marisaj44)

Featured image courtesy of [Natasha Paulmeno]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There Any Mortar in These BRICS? appeared first on Law Street.

As soccer fans around the globe eagerly tune in to the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, it is important to take a hard look at the world’s most beloved tournament and its impact on the host countries. It may initially seem that host country selection is a tremendous honor and will result in an economic boom; however, systemic corruption and bribery suggest that not all money is good money.

The Benefits and Impacts of Hosting

Following the announcement on October 30, 2001 that Brazil would be the Host Nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the developing country was propelled into a state of pride and eager anticipation. Five-time world champions and birthplace to an abundance of soccer legends such as Pelé and Ronaldinho, Brazil initially viewed hosting the 20th World Cup as an honor. The sport is not only revered at a near religious sacredness in Brazil, but additionally, the perceived economic benefits would be tantalizing for any nation.

Tourism

• The final match of the 2010 World Cup between Spain and the Netherlands drew in at least 1 billion viewers, with the 2014 games expecting to surpass that number.
• 3.7 million tourists will descend upon the country during the tournament’s four-week run.
• A projected $11.1 billion will be spent on hotels, airlines, advertising, and various other expenditures.

Job Creation

• Brazil estimates that 380,000 jobs were created because of the World Cup.

The preliminary sense of privilege, however, began to wear away as obstacles continued to emerge and speculation of Brazil’s inability to host the tournament could not be alleviated.

World Cup 2014: Brazil

How is it Financed?

The country’s original plan claimed that private donors would finance the development and renovation of stadiums. Much to the dismay of Brazilians, this plan has greatly diverted. According to The Wall Street Journal’s John Lyons and Loretta Chao, taxpayers have paid $3.6 billion for the stadiums. São Paulo will be the arena for the opening game, a brand new stadium with 62,000 seats that came with a  $550 million price tag. The stadium will go to the Corinthians soccer team after the Cup, but since the team was unable to provide enough private lenders, the stadium’s financing ended up coming from $200 million in tax breaks and government loans. The 2014 World Cup has accumulated a cost of $11.5 billion, which is twice the amount of the previous two World Cups in South Africa and Germany.

Reported by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Brazilians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Additionally, 61 percent of citizens believe hosting the event has been damaging for Brazil because it takes funding away from schools, heath care, and other public services.

Location

Manaus Stadium is another example of poor planning. The 39,000-seat stadium was constructed in the capital city in the state of Amazonas while its greatest local games scarcely attract 1,500 spectators. Since the city lacks a notable soccer team, the stadium will be rendered useless after the Cup — a significant reason as to why private lenders once again did not contribute and the blunt of the cost fell on to the citizens.

Corruption

Following the historical trend, many corruption allegations have surfaced in the lead up to this year’s World Cup. One such example, according to a report by a city auditor, is that the cost to build a stadium in Brasília was $636 million, a 68 percent increase compared to the initial projected cost. Andrade Gutierrez S.A., the builder of the stadium, chose not to comment on the “grave irregularities” found in the report. These abnormalities, such as transportation being over-billed and a 12.1 percent loss rate on steel, were a source of the distended budget.

With $4 billion spent on stadiums and an insufficient amount of funds allocated to public services, the people of Brazil have taken to strikes and protest to promote their needs.

Civil unrest

Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement), which advocates for free public transportation, gained attention on June 13, 2013 when police turned a peaceful protest into a place of terror. Officers fired rubber bullets and firing grenades at bystanders and fleeing protesters. Those who were trapped in the mayhem were subjected to inhaling pepper spray and tear gas. The movement quickly spread across a dozen state capitals. These protests occurred simultaneously with the Confederations Cup matches. BBC Sport’s Ben Smith reported that throughout the June 6, 2013 match between Uruguay and Nigeria, “the deep rumblings, loud bangs and the crackle of police weapons could be heard in the streets nearby,” leaving many with questions if the social problems Brazil is facing would hinder its ability to host the Cup a year later.

Subway Strikes

Close to the opening ceremonies, subway strikes erupted in Sao Paulo. Approximately four million people a day use the subway. The workers hoped that the strike would lead to increase in pay and better working conditions; however, the São Paulo court ruled that striking over pay was illegal.

The Homeless Demand Answers

In May 2014, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (Homeless Workers’ Movement, or MTST) and the Fronte de Resistência Urbana (Urban Resistance Front) — both organizations representing homeless citizens — protested 20,000 strong in São Paulo. The protesters demanded answers about how the government spent public funds on the World Cup. The protesters were able to garner international attention and disrupt traffic for more than 150 miles.

World Cup 2010: South Africa

Match fixing

The New York Times‘ Declan Hill and Jeré Longman investigated incidents of match fixing that took place in five exhibition matches during the South Africa 2010 World Cup. Football 4U International was the Singapore-based company that arranged the match rigging.

“At least five matches and possibly more” were manipulated, while “as many as 15 matches were targets.” The exhibition matches were exploited for betting purposes, especially in underground Asian markets. In a report obtained by The New York Times, it is estimated that the illegal betting markets in Asia total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Football 4U International

The South Africa-Guatemala friendly was one of the matches fixed by Football 4U International. Ibrahim Chaibou was the referee supplied for that game, receiving $60,000 for manipulating a 5-0 South African victory.

Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing for the South African Football Association at the time of the 2010 World Cup, was offered a bribe by Football 4U International executive Wilson Raj Perumal. The bribe of $3,500 was for the organization to supply referees for the exhibition matches.

These revelations have spurred FIFA to work closely with law enforcement officials to patrol potential match fixing during the 2014 games.

World Cup 2022: Qatar

Appalling Living and Working Conditions

While Brazil’s hosting capability has been in question, it is nearly unanimous that Qatar hosting the World Cup in 2022 is a treacherous affair. In an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS about if choosing Qatar to host in 2022 was a mistake, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, said “Yes, it was a mistake of course, but one makes lots of mistakes in life.” Journalists, fans, and officials directly connected to FIFA are calling for a new vote if it is confirmed that Qatar won because of a corrupt system. The BBC reported that Football Association chairman Greg Dyke would support a new vote.

In an interview with ESPN published June 1, 2014, Sharan Burrow of the International Union Confederation (ITUC) was asked, “How do Qataris view the people who are there building this vast infrastructure for a country with only 200,000 citizens?” Her response came as a chilling summation of the hostility,  “I don’t think they see them as human.”

Reported by Richard Conway of BBC, “Almost 200 Nepalese men are reported to have died last year working on construction projects in Qatar,” and “up to 4,000 workers could die by 2022 if current laws and attitudes persist.”

According to the ITUC Special Report “The Case Against Qatar:”

• Employers are demanding deposits of $275 paid by workers before they are allowed to leave for holidays.
• 191 Nepalese workers died in 2013 and 169 in 2012.
• 218 Indian nationals died in 2013, 237 died in 2012 and 239 in 2011.
• On average 20 Indian migrants died per month in 2013.

Qatar follows a ‘kefala’ employment system, which ties migrant workers to their sponsor companies. Human rights groups and trade unions are highly critical of this system as it requires exit visas that do not allow workers to leave without their employer’s permission.

With eight years left until Qatar is set to host the World Cup, these numbers are frightening to both human rights activists and soccer spectators.

How Bribery Gave Qatar the World Cup

In addition to the current welfare of the workers, allegations that Qatar won the bid due to fraudulent measures have also surfaced. Qatar’s former top football official, Mohamed Bin Hammam, stands at the center of it all.

• The Sunday Times obtained numerous leaked e-mails stating how bin Hammam paid off and lobbied numerous senior officials to support Qatar’s bid.
• According to Mike Singer of CBS, “Regarding former FIFA VP Jack Warner, Bin Hammam was accused of paying him more than $1.6 million in order to garner his support. Warner eventually resigned in 2011 to avoid an investigation connected to Bin Hammam’s failed attempt to become FIFA president.“
• Bin Hammam is also said to have paid up to $200,000 to multiple African soccer associations through ten slush funds in his company. In turn for receiving the money, the associations persuaded the top four FIFA officials in Africa to vote how Bin Hammam desired.

Corruption is nothing new to Bin Hammam as he has been banned for life by FIFA twice. In 2012 following a natural gas deal with Thailand (home to Worawi Makudi who is a FIFA board ally), Bin Hammam was expelled based on financial wrongdoing. Supplementing the public’s disdain for how events are transpiring thus far in Qatar, FIFA’s top sponsors have vocalized their displeasure. Visa has requested FIFA to “maintain strong ethical standards and operate with transparency.” Adidas, FIFA’s longest-standing sponsor and ball provider for the World Cup said, “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners.” Meeting opposition by six of FIFA’s sponsors — who will pay $700 million collectively over four years toward the 2014 games — are sure to influence how FIFA handles the situation.

Resources

Primary 

The New York Times: Referees Exchange Letter 

Additional

International Trade Union Confederation: “The Case Against Qatar”

FIFA: Brazil Confirmed as 2014 Hosts

Wall Street Journal: Hopes Fades in Brazil for a World Cup Economic Boost

Soccerly: World Cup Expected to Bring 3.7 Million Tourist Invasion

Pew Research Center: Brazilian Discontent Ahead of World Cup

Wall Street Journal: São Paulo Subway Workers to Strike

International Business Times: No to the Cup: Homeless Workers’ Association Leads 20,000 People in Sao Paulo to Demonstrate Against World Cup Costs

The New York Times: Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

Economist: The Streets Erupt

BBC: Qatar World Cup 2022: FIFA Vice-President ‘Would Support’ Re-Vote

ESPN : Qatar’s World Cup

BBC: Qatar 2022: Plans to Protect World Cup Workers Unveiled

CBS: Report: Former FIFA Exec Paid $5 Million to Support Qatar WC Bid

Guardian: World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues With 100 Days to Go 

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest appeared first on Law Street.