|  | Feature: Sport and Leisure | No.50 May 2007 |

Public Recreation Service Provision in South Africa: A Historic Comparison between two Political Ideologies Anneliese Goslin, Megan Bam & Darlene Kluka |
The presence of recreation activities in human existence can be traced to the early beginnings of recorded human history. Mechikoff and Estes [1] recorded how athletic ability, physical fitness, competition games and cultural pastimes (as expressions of recreation activities) formed part of Sumerian and ancient Egyptian cultures as early as 4000BC. Modern organised public recreation service provision is however regarded as a product of industrialisation and the leisure-work trade off. Workers in the industrialised societies had increased amounts of free time and were inclined to use that time for pleasurable pursuits. A system of services and activities therefore evolved in response to these needs, expectations and demands. It can be argued that the organised recreation provision system started as a social movement during the early 1900’s and reached maturity by the latter half of the twentieth century involving both the private and public sectors [2]. An observation of the history of the Koi and the San as earliest inhabitants in South Africa revealed various recreational practices in which they participated on a regular basis. With the settlement of the first Europeans in 1652, a rich legacy of traditional games and spontaneous play in which the indigenous tribes participated had already been built up. A diversity of sport and recreation practices became an integral part of South African society [3]. Practices of public recreation provision developed mainly along a two-tiered approach in South Africa, namely the provision of parks and recreation facilities, driven mainly by local authorities, and the provision of recreation services and activity programs delivered by national and local authorities [4]. The history of the provision of parks and recreation facilities by national and local authority levels is well-documented [5]. Although recreation service provision played a vital role in the public and private sectors of South African society and diverse role players made substantial contributions, an historical documentation of organised recreation provision from a service provision approach in the public sector is, lacking. As recreation service provision in the public sector reflects the beliefs and strategies of the political ideology of the day, the South African context presents a unique case study on two different political ideologies: the exclusive apartheid system from 1948-1994 and an inclusive democratic system from 1994 onwards. The aims of this research were therefore to provide an overview of public recreation service provision in South Africa by identifying and clarifying the main trends and role players and to attempt to reveal similarities and differences in public recreation service provision through two distinct political ideologies. The historical research method is appropriate for achieving the aims of this study as it focuses on the objective analysis and recording of source materials relevant to recreation service provision in South Africa. Primary sources of official reports, minutes of meetings, policy documents, personal interviews with role players and annual reports were analysed. Secondary sources of scientific theses, journals and textbooks supplemented the primary sources. The study was limited to organised recreation activity and service provision by national service providers in the public sector for the timeframe 1948 – 2006. This specific timeframe represents two distinct political eras in South African history namely the apartheid era under a Nationalist Government (1948- April 1994) and the post-apartheid, democracy era under an African National Congress Government (May 1994 onwards). This historical overview is structured and analysed within the constructs of philosophy and policies, legislation, governance, programs and initiatives, and training and education in both eras. The historical development of the provision of parks and recreation facilities as well as initiatives focused on formal sport provision is specifically excluded from the scope of this study. For the purpose of this study organised public recreation service provision is defined as recreation programs and activities initiated by government, targeted at the masses and funded with public money for the purpose of improving quality of life of the end consumer. Apartheid era (1948-1994) Although the indigenous peoples of South Africa provided a rich heritage of traditional games and cultural recreation activities to early South African society for the European settlers to discover and shared, the political history manifested differently. The indigenous African cultures were regarded as inferior to the dominant culture of the European settlers and especially to the white Afrikaner when the Nationalist Party came to power in 1948 [6]. The subsequent political development in South Africa resulted in the Apartheid system, characterised by the legalisation of the oppression of non-white cultures and interests. This also applied to sport and recreational aspects of social life. Recreation Philosophy and Policies To understand the context in which current sport and recreation policy has been drafted, it is necessary to review past polices and research reports as well as political changes within national government during the apartheid era as well as the post-apartheid period. The apartheid era placed restrictions on normal sporting contact between the various population groups and the same principle was applied to recreation programmes. Recreation policy evolved considerably following the establishment of the Department of Sport and Recreation in 1966 from a government that entrenched the apartheid law, to a latter day democratic government. The effect of government policy on the provision of recreation is important as it is the macro policies of government prior to 1994, and post 1994, that have impacted the most on the status quo of recreation provision in South Africa. Industrial growth during the 1930’s and World War II, resulted in a larger number of Blacks migrating to the cities and squatter areas began to grow. These were the prevailing conditions when the National Party came into power in 1948 and began to implement a new and even stricter policy of social and racial segregation. A series of Acts establishing complete social segregation was promulgated within a decade. The Group Areas Act (1950) specified separate residential areas for Africans, whites, coloureds and Asians. Stricter influx control curbed the growth of the urban black population: in 1960 the focus of government policy shifted to the development of homelands. Family housing and services for blacks were provided in homeland towns and in 1965 the Act was extended to exclude black spectators from sports matches and other public entertainment. The Reservation of the Separate Amenities Act (1953) imposed racial segregation in public places and stadiums and the Native Law Amendment Act (1957) regulated segregation in various organisations (sports federations, clubs, schools, churches). The Liquor Amendment Act (1963) forbade whites, Indians and coloureds from consuming alcoholic drinks with Africans except on premises they owned, which effectively prevented sportspersons of different races from drinking and mixing together socially. These acts effectively controlled the social environment in which sport and recreation was played and while not addressing it to recreation organisations per se, it had a direct impact on the environment in which it was participated in and on the social contact between the different race groups; there was no opportunity to socialise with each other after participation. An increasing demand from non-whites for shared participation in organised recreation and sport and for joint authority in the management of it led to the formulation of the first sport policy in South Africa in June 1956. Although this policy was labelled a sport policy, it in effect also regulated organised recreation activities. The 1956 policy determined that whites and the different non-white population groups were to organise their sport and recreation activities under separate controlling bodies and effectively spelled out no integration between whites and non-whites. It stipulated that no mixed activities would be allowed within the borders of South Africa; no representative mixed teams or delegations would compete abroad; international teams competing in South Africa against white South African teams must be all-white, according to South African custom; non-white sportsmen from overseas could compete against non-white South Africans in South Africa; non-white organisations seeking international affiliation must do so through the already recognised white organisations in their code of sport or recreation organisation; and government would refuse travel visas to subversive non-white sportsmen or recreation scholars who sought to discredit South Africa’s image abroad or contest the government’s racial policies [8]. In 1978, the governmental Department of Sport and Recreation commissioned an extensive research to report on the position of sport and recreation that culminated in the Hoek Report (1978). The Hoek Report resulted in the total fragmentation of sport and recreation from the national government level. It recommended that recreation provision by central government be decentralised by all departments in accordance with their core functions. This allowed apartheid in sport and recreation to be enforced through: the Office of the Prime Minister, the Department of Sport and Recreation and all other state departments; the standardisation of community recreation facilities and the setting of minimum requirements concerning their use and safety by the Department of Community Development; the implementation of global physical planning, including standards for open space for public recreation by the Department of Planning and Environment; international liaison and distribution of relevant sport and recreation information by the Department of External Affairs; the provision for walking trails, rock climbing, mountain climbing and adventure recreation by the Department of Forestry; the marketing of outdoor recreation activities by the Department of Tourism; the provision of finance, human power, programmes, facilities, information to black communities by the Department of Co-operation and Development; and the rendering of sport and recreation resources and services to the Police Force was handled by the South African Police [9]. The response of sport and recreation service providers on the Hoek Report compelled government on 27 October 1979 to request the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), as a neutral scientific agency, to launch a nationally representative and scientifically based investigation into sport and recreation provision within South Africa and to propose specific recommendations concerning a new national structure and dispensation for sport and recreation provision at all levels. The encompassing HRSC Report was completed and released on 6 September 1982. Where the Hoek Report of 1978 sought to entrench apartheid in sport and recreation, the HSRC Report sought to free sport and recreation from the bondage of those fundamental apartheid laws. The HSRC Report played a significant role in educating the state and its institutions about viewing recreation in a holistic manner, that each individual is responsible for his/her own leisure behaviour and that certain social institutions are jointly responsible for the delivery of recreation resources and services. The HSRC Report was a significant milestone as it proposed the abolishment of, or changes to certain laws and by-laws. Although there were no laws that addressed sport and recreation activities directly, all legislation that was passed had an influence on controlling the social environment of blacks and whites and thus what happened during people’s free time. The HSRC Report furthermore recommended that government should subscribe towards a holistic approach to the provision of sport and recreation as opposed to the fragmented provision approach to recreation and sport [10]. Governance Responsibility for creating governance infrastructure for public recreation programme provision during the apartheid era was shared by national government and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s). Prior to 1960, the first pioneer initiatives to provide organised recreation programmes centred on increasing the physical fitness and well-being of the white population under the National Advisory Council for Physical Education (NACPE) housed in the Department of Education of the Union of South Africa [11]. The primary function of the NACPE focused on the development of organised physical education and recreation in South Africa as a means to improve quality of life. The journal “Vigor” was first published by NACPE in 1947, in collaboration with the Department of Health of the Union Government. It became the mouthpiece of the NACPE, to facilitate their mandate and coincided with the founding of the South African Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (SAAHPER) as the first scientific association in the disciplines of Physical Education and recreation. This body was funded by the Departments of Education and Health in the Union Government [12]. As such, it reiterated and enforced the government ideology of separate recreation service provision for different population groups within South Africa. During this so-called Vigor era, concerns were raised about the national fitness levels of white Afrikaaners [13] and as early as 1959, the first National Fitness Conference was held. Sport and recreation activities were stressed as appropriate ways to establish and reinforce the dominant political ideology of the day [14]. Traditional dances (“Volkspele”) and mass participation activities like Gymnaestradas were therefore often linked with political events and festivals such as the Johannesburg Sport and Recreation Festival in 1959, Union festival in 1960, the Republic Festival in 1961 as well as the fifth commemoration of the South African Republic in 1966 [15],[16],[17]. From 1948 to 1964, the function of public recreation provision was situated mainly in the national government Department of National Education. In 1965 however, the Nationalist government decided that a separate state department should be created to take care of its interest with regard to sport and recreation. On 1 July 1966, the Department of Sport and Recreation was thus created to organise and stimulate white sport and recreation. However, due to the apartheid roots and motives covertly and overtly underlying its inception, it was internally and externally seen as yet another creation of the apartheid system and was therefore viciously rejected. These negative perceptions also applied to recreation initiatives by the Division of Sport and Recreation of the Department of Co-operation and Development, as well as government sanctioned recreation structures or initiatives within the central government’s Armed Forces, Police, Prisons, education institutions and provincial and local governments [10]. This resulted in national infrastructures being quadrupled to cater for the recreation needs and demands of four racial groups. Between 1970 and 1980, a tripartite parliamentary system was established under Apartheid laws. This system represented Whites, Coloureds and Indians in national parliament. A separate system, without parliamentary representation, namely the Bantu Homeland System for Separate Development, was established for Blacks [6], [7]. Due to rationalisation and changing government priorities, the autonomous Department of Sport and Recreation was relegated in April 1980 to be a Branch: Sport and Recreation Advancement within the Department of National Education. In 1981, the name was again changed to the Directorate: Sport and Recreation Advancement [10]. Regional Administration Boards were created in 1974 to provide a delivery structure on the regional level for so-called Bantu affairs. Part of their jurisdiction was to provide sport and recreation opportunities to the non-white population. Although it was labelled as independent agencies, it was funded and controlled by the national government Departments of Co-Operation and Development and Bantu Education. In 1985, the Administration Boards were changed to Development Boards with the same functions as their predecessors. Recreation programmes and services were presented in conjunction with private sector welfare organisations and the Department of Bantu Education thus attempted to establish a holistic approach to recreation provision [18]. In 1966, the South African Association for Physical Education, Health and Recreation (SAAHPER) reconstituted as the South African Association for Physical Education and Recreation (SAAPER), and later in 1983 as the South African Association for Sport Science, Physical Education and Recreation (SAASSPER). It was still labelled as a non-governmental association concerned with the development of scientific knowledge in Physical Education and later sport, recreation and tourism, and was structured according to committees for Physical Education, Sport Science, Exercise Science and Recreation and Tourism [19]. Membership was limited to white academics and practitioners in accordance to the apartheid laws of the day. In 1979, the Trim South African Association (TRIMSA) was established as an umbrella body for whites-only recreation associations. The aims of TRIMSA were to stimulate mass recreation activities within communities to build capacity and infrastructure on the local level. In 1985, TRIMSA merged with SAASSPER and became part of the Recreation and Tourism Committee of SAASSPER [20]. Although both TRIMSA and SAASSPER were constituted as non-governmental associations, they obtained formal recognition and funding from the Department of National Education of the apartheid government. In 1992, SAASSPER unbundled and the different sub-committees re-constituted as autonomous national non-governmental associations for Recreation and Tourism (South African Association for Recreation and Tourism (SAART)), Exercise Science, Biokinetics, Physical Education and Sport Science [21]. SAART subsequently changed its name to Recreation South Africa (RECSA) in July 1994 [22]. Public recreation programs and initiatives Although the emphasis was mainly on competitive sport promotion and sport facility provision, the national government did establish Trimparks in 1971 as a means to improve the fitness levels of citizens based on the Belgium and German models. Trimparks provided self-directed physical recreation programmes and were erected on communal spaces in white residential areas and in a few black urban townships. After the establishment of the Trim South Africa Federation (TRIMSA) in 1979, a spectrum of mass physical recreation campaigns were developed in conjunction with the Directorate of Sport and Recreation Advancement of the Department of National Education. Initiatives included programs presented during the Family Fitness Year (1984), programs presented in support of Youth Year (1985), Big Move (1987 – 1988) and the National Trimweek (1987 – 1990). National recreation campaigns such as the Big Move and Trim Games (trimjol, officetrim, familytrim, trimswim, trimskip, trimjog, trimwalk) targeted senior citizens, families, youths and disabled persons. These campaigns were co-funded by government and the private sector but were again exclusively for whites [8]. The success of the trim programs initiated the National Trimweeks held annually between 1987 and 1990. The aim of National Trimweek was to get all communities involved in a week of concentrated mass participation to improve the general well-being of all South African citizens. During the Trimweek the emphasis was on disseminating information to the general public on maintaining healthy lifestyles, increased quality of life through fitness and physical activity as well as meaningful ways to manage leisure time. Trimweek and the efforts of TRIMSA at that late stage of the apartheid regime marked the first attempts of the South African government to normalise public recreation and sport opportunities. Deliberate efforts were made to include the non-white majority of South Africans in the Trimweek campaigns. In 1993, a national Sport For All (mass physical recreation) program was launched by the Directorate Sport and Recreation Advancement of the Department of National Education. This signalled an attempt to include other government organisations responsible for mass recreation but that were still under the various racial groupings, namely the Department of Education and Training (Blacks), the House of Representatives (Coloureds), the House of Delegates (Indians) and the Bantu Homeland Authorities. Much was achieved with modest funding, but without formal government policy on multi-racial sport and recreation, no real progress could take place [18]. Recreation training and education initiatives A key result of the HSRC Report on sport and recreation provision in South Africa released in 1982, was a call for in-service training programs for recreation leaders as well as formal academic programs at tertiary education institutions [23]. Although the South African government acknowledged the importance of scientific recreation training programs, the actual design and delivery of such programs was left to the educational and private sector. The Institute for Sport Research and Training at the University of Pretoria consequently developed an in-service training program for recreation leaders and presented the first training course for recreation leaders employed by the Port Natal Administration Board in 1983 in Pretoria. In-service recreation training courses for recreation leaders of the Administration and later Development Boards continued until 1989 [18]. Formal academic training programs were also available as subjects at a number of South African universities and technical universities in the academic offerings of the Departments of Physical Education, Human Movement Sciences, and Forestry, Parks and Environmental Sciences. The need to co-ordinate and standardise recreation training at South African tertiary education institutions, without hampering individual initiatives, was first expressed in 1987 by the Committee for Recreation and Tourism of SAASSPER [25]. Sadly a lack of mutual trust, secrecy regarding contents of academic programs, an often irrational fear of loss of initiative and conflicting personal interests prevented efforts to standardise formal academic recreation training programs. Post-apartheid era (1994-2006) Recreation Philosophy and Policy In 1994, South Africa underwent major political changes and a democratic government was elected. Sport and recreation were identified as contributors to the re-engineering of the South African society [26] and a national Ministry of Sport and Recreation was again established on 1 July 1994. The Department of Sport and Recreation aimed to increase the levels of participation in sport and recreation activities, raise sports’ profile in the face of conflicting priorities, maximise the probability of success in major events and place sport in the forefront of efforts to reduce the levels of crime. The major challenge of the department was to provide services to all South Africans from a budget that previously catered for only 20% of the South African population. A Directorate for Recreation Advancement was established within the Department of Sport and Recreation. For the first time there was a Directorate dedicated to the provision of recreation policy and services with a mission stating “ the enhancement of the physical well-being of the nation through the provision of equitable, affordable, accessible recreation facilities, programmes, services, education and training” [27]. The re-establishment of a national government Department of Sport and Recreation confirmed the new government’s commitment to the advancement of sport and recreation and resulted in the first dedicated national sport and recreation policy. The first White Paper on Sport and Recreation with the theme “Getting the nation to play” was drafted in 1996 and stated unequivocally that the overall responsibility for policy, provision and delivery of sport and recreation resides with the newly established Department of Sport and Recreation. The White Paper on Sport and Recreation for the first time in history provided government policy guidelines for the delivery of sport and recreation in South Africa. It was, however, not prescriptive and did not have any binding capacity for its stakeholders (provinces, local authorities, national federations). This implied that the national Department of Sport and Recreation did not have any legal jurisdiction over the provinces and local authorities to actually implement the strategies and priorities as set out in the national White Paper. Provincial Departments of Sport and Recreation were however obliged to align themselves with the national Department of Sport and Recreation in terms of their own provincial White Papers on Sport and Recreation. The White Paper on Sport and Recreation identified eight priority areas to be addressed by all sport and recreation role players and stakeholders: (1) confirm roles and streamline the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in sport and recreation to ensure that coordination and economies of scale are realised; (2) provide funds for the creation or upgrading of basic multi-purpose sports facilities in disadvantaged areas; (3) develop the human resource potential required for the effective management of sport and recreation in South Africa; (4) motivate the community to develop active lifestyles and channel those with talent for development into the competitive areas of sport; (5) develop a high-performance programme that is geared towards the preparation of elite athletes for major competitions; (6) ensure that all sport and recreation bodies meet their affirmative action objectives; (7) develop a code of ethics for sport and recreation in South Africa; and (8) develop an international relations policy, in concert with national government policy. The primary focus of Priority Four had direct reference to recreation service provision. It described the key principles for the development of recreation service delivery and stipulated that recreation development must be demand-driven and community-based, participation in recreation activities is a fundamental human right, must be based on equitable resource allocation and coordinated effort and integrated development. For the first time, the White Paper on Sport and Recreation also gave due consideration to the shortcomings of previous uncoordinated and visionless recreation provision policies and activities [28]. Governance During 1997, the Department of Sport and Recreation, through its Directorate for Recreation Advancement, initiated the establishment of an inter-departmental committee (IDC) for the enhancement of recreation in its various facets in all national government departments. This aimed to avoid duplication in areas of common interest and to define the roles of the different departments in the development of recreation towards achieving Priority Four of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation [10]. This attempt to achieve a holistic recreation delivery policy had its roots in the lessons learnt from the previous dispensation where recreation service provision was fragmented by function as well as race. The attempt was also a realisation that the efficient functioning of recreation service provision contributed towards the quality of life of all South Africans [29]. The IDC commissioned a research report to determine the areas of co-operation and linkages between government departments in terms of recreation service provision. The report covered three broad areas: a brief overview on the history of previous Departments of Sport and Recreation since 1966; a discussion of the South African sport and recreation law and its implication for the provision of recreation; the background and results of an empirical study involving seven government departments; and recommendations for the continuation of the IDC as well as future research trends [10]. The White Paper on Sport and Recreation also attempted to outline and streamline the different levels of public recreation service delivery and role players involved and called for the establishment and funding of a macro recreation structure. This macro structure, entitled the South African National Recreation Council (SANREC), was constituted in May 1998 under the guidance of the Directorate of Recreation Advancement [30]. The aims of SANREC were: (1) to represent all recreation service deliverers; (2) to support and develop the collective interest of the recreation industry; (3) to advise the Minister of Sport and Recreation on recreation policy; (4) to co-operate and liaise with the said Minister; (5) to establish Provincial Recreation Councils (PROREC’s); and (6) to assist the PROREC’s in creating recreation service delivery infrastructure on regional levels. The SANREC management committee consisted of nine PROREC chairpersons, three chairpersons of the Specialist Committees and two ex-officio members (one from the DSR and one from the National Sports Council). The Specialist Committees were divided into three competency areas: (1) Education, training, research, technology and information; (2) Facilities; and (3) Programmes. Each PROREC had the responsibility of co-ordinating the activities of the recreation organisations in its respective province [31]. Priority One of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation [28] sought to confirm roles and streamline responsibilities of the various stakeholders in sport and recreation to ensure that co-ordination and economies of scale were realised. In order to fulfil this priority, the National Sports and Recreation Act (NSRA) was promulgated in 1998 giving authority to national government to establish the South African Sports Commission (SASC) [32]. This implied that the SASC, as a statutory body and modelled on the Australian Sports Commission, effectively merged with the National Sports Council (the then macro sport federation in South Africa). The national government Department of Sport and Recreation continued to exist and the Minister of Sport and Recreation retained his Ministry but with a smaller administrative department. This smaller administrative department was renamed Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) [33]. On 1 April 2000 the SASC began its operation. The legislative framework, which enabled the establishment of the SASC, placed it in a unique position as it cemented the sports position in government. The critical threats that faced the SASC at that stage was the commercialisation of sport, HIV/AIDS, drug abuse and crime and the introduction of substitute activities to sport such as entertainment and gaming. In the face of this, the SASC had identified four strategic thrusts, namely: (1) to manage, promote and co-ordinate the provision for sport and recreation; (2) to ensure participation in international events; (3) to ensure the provision of resources; and (4) policy development and implementation. The implication for recreation service delivery, however, was that there was no longer a Directorate of Recreation Advancement or a unit dedicated to recreation. Among recreation leaders there was a strong perception that the South African Sports (and Recreation) Commission did not satisfactorily accommodate recreation provision at national and lower levels. The need for a separate and autonomous national structure solely for recreation, comparable to that of the Sports Commission, or alternatively, the transformation of the Sports Commission to fully accommodate the needs of recreation provision, in its official name as well as its functions, was expressed by recreation leaders, with no effect. The former public recreation service provision function had now been split across two sub-units of the SASC. There was no indication that mass participation programs would form part of these four strategic thrusts and the focus seemed to be more on high performance sport as reflected in the vision statement of the SASC: “To lead South Africa to world-class sporting excellence”. A commissioner for recreation was however elected to the Board of the SASC and tasked with ensuring that the issue of recreation was addressed by the SASC via its programmes, funding and education and training initiatives [34]. In 2002, The White Paper on Sport and Recreation was revised. In this revised edition the definition of recreation still stood but was overshadowed by the role of sport in South African society. In Priority One of the White Paper no mention was then made of a national macro structure for recreation, however, mention was made of provincial recreation councils reporting to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) at the provincial level. Priority Four now included recreation as a focus area along with development sport. It stated that “SRSA and SASC are firmly committed to the principle of providing positive recreation opportunities and the development of a healthy society”. The provision of recreation opportunities was recognised as a vital prerequisite for sport and recreation development programs. The four key principles of recreation policy, namely recreation development, should be demand-driven and community based, recreation participation as a fundamental right, equitable resource allocation and coordinated effort and integrated development, were reiterated as in the 1997 White Paper on Sport and Recreation [35]. In 1999, the South African Alliance for Sport Science, Physical Education and Recreation (SAASSPER) as the alliance of four scientific associations, dissolved as it was no longer funded by national government as was the case in the apartheid era. The South African Sports Commission (SASC) was now the recognised macro structure and Government was no longer directly involved with the scientific aspects of recreation provision [36]. In 2005, the SASC was dissolved and a new structure encompassing all macro sports structures amalgamated to form the South African Sports and Olympic Confederation (SASCOC). The functions of mass recreation participation and recreation education and training were transferred back to the national Department of Sport and Recreation (Sport and Recreation South Africa). Again, public recreation service provision was perceived as subservient to competitive sport [37]. Recreation Legislation During the Apartheid Era (1948–1994), no Acts were promulgated to specifically regulate the recreation industry. General Apartheid Laws were however applicable to sport and recreation participation and provision to all South Africans [8]. The first White Paper on Sport and Recreation [28] was not prescriptive and did not have any legal binding capacity on its stakeholders (provinces, local authorities and national federations) but nevertheless established the foundation for specific recreation and sport legislation to follow in the post-apartheid era. Between 1998 and 2006, legislation changes to regulate the promotion of sport and recreation in South Africa were made by national government: National Sport and Recreation (NSRA) Act no 110 of 1998 and amendments; the establishment and repeal of the South African Sports Commission (South African Sports Commission (SASC) Act no 109 of 1998 and amendments; and the South African Sports Commission Act Repeal Bill; and regulation of safety measures at sport and recreation events (Safety at Sports at Recreational events Bill – in consultation stage). For the first time, South African sport and recreation legislation aimed at correcting imbalances in sport and recreation, promoting equity and democracy in sport and recreation, providing for dispute resolution mechanisms in sport and recreation, empowering the Minister to make regulations and providing for matters concerned with sport and recreation provision [38]. According to the articles of the NRSA of 1998, it seemed again as if the provision of recreation was fragmented and decentralised as was the case in the apartheid era. The NSRA stipulates that “Every government ministry, department, province or local authority may carry out sporting or recreational activities relating to physical education, sport and recreation, including training programmes and development of leadership qualities” [32]. Recreation programs and initiatives On its inception in 1994, the Directorate of Recreation Advancement of the national Department of Sport and Recreation was faced with a negative social scenario that included a high incidence of teenage pregnancy, a culture of social disintegration, the rate of HIV/AIDS infection doubling each year, substance abuse, high rape and assault statistics and a population that was leading a sedentary lifestyle [18]. The need for intervention was clear and in 1995, Recreation South Africa (RECSA) as the scientific and professional association for Leisure Sciences in South Africa, was approached and contracted by the national Department of Sport and Recreation to act as the agent with the specific brief of administering and delivering a national mass recreation programme [39]. The South African National Games and Leisure Activities (Sangala) recreation mass participation program was developed and launched in 1996 to address this negative scenario and to promote the benefits of an active, healthy lifestyle in line with Priority Four of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation as well as the Directorate’s vision statement of “providing recreation to the nation” [40]. The Sangala programme was committed to providing mass recreation programs to street children, senior citizens, corporate managers, toddlers, youth, disabled, women, girls and prisoners. It consisted of 8 national projects promoting effective leisure utilisation and improving general physical wellness of South African citizens. The National Wellness Day launched in 1997 was an isolated effort from government’s side to mobilise all South Africans to participate in physical recreation activities in order to impact on the nation’s general health status [41]. Public mass participation recreation programs on the national level were transferred from the national department of Sport and Recreation to the South African Sports Commission on its inception in 1999 and back to the national Department of Sport and Recreation in 2004 with the dissolution of the South African Sports Commission. The mass recreation programs are premised on the belief that physical activity and recreation have important benefits for the economic, social and physical health of South Africans. The spin-off thereof being positive cultural, environmental and community values. National government set policy in this regard and projects are implemented from and through provincial and local government. The Siyadlala (“Let’s Play”) program acts as the flagship initiative and delivery mechanism for the stated premise. Program values and objectives were identified as getting the nation to play; encouraging lifelong mass participation; forging partnerships between national, provincial and local governments; unifying diverse communities; enabling communities to have fun; and facilitating volunteerism. Indigenous games representing the cultural diversity of South Africa, adapted recreation sport activities and sport and recreation festivals and mass events were established as vehicles to achieve the objectives of the mass participation initiative [42]. Recreation Training and Education In their 1994 policy framework for the reconstruction and development of South Africa, the African National Congress identified the development of human resources in all industries (including the sport and recreation industry) as a key prerequisite [26]. This requirement was institutionalised in Priority Three of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation by acknowledging that trained human power is essential for the effective management of sport and recreation in South Africa [28]. The recruitment and training of volunteers spearheaded the coordinated national recreation training initiative and strategy of national government. In 1995, Recreation South Africa (RECSA), as the professional and scientific association for the Leisure Sciences in South Africa, was identified by the Directorate of Recreation Advancement of the government Department Sport and Recreation (DSR) to design and deliver recreation training programs to facilitate Priority Three of the White Paper. Subsequently, recreation training programs were developed and training courses presented in collaboration with the DSR from 1995 to 2000. This qualified volunteers as community recreation leaders in senior citizen activity groups, street children shelters, rural communities and prisons [43]. This effort by RECSA formed the backbone and driving force behind the national Sangala program during 1996-2000. Between 2000 and 2006, the responsibility of training community recreation leaders rested with the sub-unit Education and Training in the South African Sports Commission (SASC), who developed training manuals for indigenous games leaders and generic recreation management programs. When the SASC was dissolved in 2006, the new structure of the government department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) made provision for an Education and training sub-directorate, who took over the intellectual property rights of all recreation training programs developed in the public sector. For the first time, career paths in the recreation industry were formalised as the focus was now on credit-bearing Skills Development and Training in Sport and Recreation based on the principles of Outcomes Based Education (OBE) and the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). SRSA utilises licensed training Service Providers (LTSP’s) accredited with the Tourism, Hospitality and Sport Education and Training Authority (THETA) under the auspices of the SAQA. Recreation training efforts developed and funded from the public sector focus on basic generic recreation competencies for communities and are supplemented by the training initiatives of the private sector [44]. Similarities between ideological eras Although the two eras under discussion represent distinct political ideologies in the South African history of public recreation service provision, common trends are evident: In both eras, recreation participation was acknowledged as a basic right and essential tool to improve the quality of life of citizens albeit delivered in different ways. Public recreation service provision formed part of government attempts to address social problems or issues by linking the value thereof to generic higher level social objectives such as nation building, socialisation, reducing crime or improving the health status of the population. The function of public recreation service provision was housed in a national government department of Sport and Recreation. The focus of public recreation service provision in both political ideological eras was unfortunately relegated to a subservient position to elite sport. The value of recreation participation was never regarded as an end in itself but always campaigned as the first step to participation in competition sport, hence the exclusive focus on physical recreation rather than an inclusive paradigm of recreation participation. Recreation service provision in both eras reflects an exclusive physical recreation perspective rather than an inclusive delivery strategy, acknowledging the rich diversity of all recreation activities. The potential of public recreation service provision to reinforce the political ideology of the day is evident in both eras. Government decision-makers in both eras realised that public recreation service provision was not a function of one service provider but relied on and encouraged partnerships between the public and private sector as well as between the national, provincial and local levels of government. Mass participation programs and recreation festivals as vehicles to construct national identity featured prominently in both eras and contributed towards a physically active nation by co-ordinating mass participation and festivals in conjunction with private and public stakeholders. Differences between ideological eras As can be expected, marked differences between public recreation service provision in the two ideological political eras, crystallised from the historic analysis presented in this study, also exist. The most prolific difference between the two eras is undoubtedly the efforts of the democratically elected government to create an environment conducive to the development of public recreation service delivery through instating appropriate policy on recreation provision. The White Paper on Sport and Recreation introduced for the first time a structured recreation and sport delivery strategy according to priorities that shifted the paradigm from being separate and exclusive in the apartheid era towards being inclusive in the democratic era. The White Paper clearly defined how the role of the national government department of Sport and Recreation since its inception in 1966 to 1994 should change radically, from catering for a mere 20% of the population (whites) to the total South African population. The period 1994 – 2006 also saw the first sport and recreation specific legislation being promulgated to provide for a unified structure for the governance of sport and recreation in South Africa in order to reflect the inclusive strategy of service delivery. Human resource development and capacity building emerged as a focus area in the democratic era. Skills training programmes form an integral part of public recreation service function of government whilst it was left to the NGO and private sector in the previous administration. This focus can again be attributed to the paradigm shift towards inclusivity as opposed to exclusivity in the apartheid regime. Public recreation service provision is firmly committed to the principle of trained recreation leaders as the basis for effective service provision. The democratic era, as a period of structured public recreation provision, is also evident from the business plans that direct all actions involving mass recreation activities and festivals. Although festivals and mass participation events also existed during the apartheid era, there was no continuity or clear long-term goals. Managing the cultural diversity of South Africa, racial tolerance and social integration through public recreation service provision initiatives are reflected in the indigenous games program encouraging the different cultural groups to take cognisance of cultural diversity. Public recreation initiatives during the apartheid regime did not acknowledge the cultural diversity of groups other than the whites according to the exclusive paradigm of national government. Conclusion Although profound differences exist in public recreation service provision between the two political ideologies, the value of recreation in nation building and as a vehicle for impacting on social issues, have been recognised since 1948, albeit in different ways and governance structures. Since 1994, public recreation service provision has been managed according to a national framework and plan thereby enabling all South Africans to exercise their right to participate in recreation activities. Notes [1] R.A.Mechikoff & S.G. Estes, A history and philosophy of sport and physical education: from ancient civilizations to the modern world (3rd ed.) ( New York:McGraw-Hill Education, 2002), 23. [2] D. Sessoms, Leisure Services 6th ed (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 2. [3] Floris van der Merwe, “The history of sport in South Africa” in Lateef O. Amusa , Abel L. Toriola and I.U. Onyewadume (eds.), Physical Education and Sport in Africa (Ibadan: LAP Publications, 1999), 1. [4] Lynne Lourens, “Parks and recreation provision in Roodepoort” (Masters dissertation, University of Pretoria, 1998), 12-14. [5] Brian P. Botha, Administration of municipal parks and recreation facilities, (Johannesburg: Juta, 1981), 34. [6] Hermann Giliomee, The Afrikaners (Cape Town: Tafelberg Publishers, 2004), 306-354. [7] Anneliese Goslin and Alan Bush, “Sport for All as getting the nation to play” in Worldwide experiences and trends in Sport for All, eds. Lamartine DaCosta and Ana Miragaya (Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport, 2002), 207-225. [8] Human Sciences Research Council, HSRC Sport Report: Statutory regulations influencing sport (Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1982), 17-29. [9] Beyers K de W Hoek, Johannes L. Botha and Hugo Olivier, Report of the committee of enquiry on the status of sport and physical recreation under the population groups of South Africa (Pretoria: Department of Sport and Recreation, 1978), 23-78. [10] Gert J.L. Scholtz, Anneliese E. Goslin, Alan R. Bush and Ntombise Mene, Recreation provision by various state departments (Pretoria: Center for Leisure Studies, University of Pretoria, 1998), 25-27. [11] Johannes F. Botha, “The N.A.C.P.E. and its programme for Youth,” Vigor 2.2 (March 1949): 18-19. [12] C.E. Botha, “Founding of South African Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,” Vigor 1.3 (March 1947): 36. [13] C.E. Botha, “Editorial,” Vigor 1.1 (September1947): 3. [14] Rudolph Opperman, “Sport and Recreation festivals,” Vigor 13.1 (December 1959): 25-29. [15] Cecile de Ridder, “Volkspele,” Vigor 3.1 (December 1949): 15-18. [16] C.E. Botha, “Editorial,” Vigor 12.3 (June 1959): 25. [17] Human Sciences Research Council, HSRC Sport Report: South African Sport festivals and Games (Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1982), 34-117. [18] Alan Bush, Personal interviews June to August 2004. [19] South African Association for Physical Education and Recreation (SAAPER), “Minutes of Executive Council Meeting,” (Pretoria 25 September 1966). [20] TRIMSA, “Minutes of Executive Council Meeting,” (Pretoria 13 August 1985). [21] South African Association for Recreation and Tourism (SAART), “Minutes of Executive Council Meeting,” (Cape Town 5 July 1992). [22] Recreation South Africa (RECSA), “Minutes of first Biennial General Meeting,” (Bloemfontein 7 July 1994). [23] Human Sciences Research Council, HSRC Report: Manpower in Sport (Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1982), 47-173. [24] Anneliese Goslin, “A survey on the training of recreation leaders with specific reference to a training structure for the republic of South Africa: A Physical Educational perspective” (DPhil dissertation, University of Pretoria, 1983), 67-83. [25] South African Association for Physical Education, Sport Science and Recreation (SAASSPER), “Minutes of Executive Council Meeting,” (Pretoria 4 September). [26] African National Congress, The Reconstruction and Development Programme. A Policy framework (Johannesburg: Umanyano Publishers), 56-57. [27] Department of Sport and Recreation, Annual Report 1994/1995 (Pretoria: Government Printers, 1995), 7. [28] Department of Sport and Recreation, White Paper on Sport and Recreation (Pretoria: Government Printers, 1997), 5-12. [29] Inter-departmental Committee (IDC), “Minutes of inaugural meeting of the IDC,” (Pretoria 5 March 1998), 1. [30] South African National Recreation Council (SANREC), “Inaugural minutes of the Executive Council Meeting,” (Pretoria, 5 May 1998), 3. [31] Department of Sport and Recreation, Annual Report 1998/1999 (Pretoria: Government Printers, 1999), 7. [32] Republic of South Africa, National Sports and Recreation Act No 110 of 1998 (Pretoria: Government Gazette, 1998), 1-25. [33] Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA), Annual Report 2000/2001 (Pretoria: Government Printers, 2001), 6-8. [34] South African Sports Commission, Annual Report 2000/2001 (Cape Town: Cape & Transvaal Printers, 2000), 2. [35] Sport and Recreation South Africa, White Paper on Sport and Recreation (Cape Town: Cape & Transvaal Printers, 2002), 7,16. [36] South African Alliance for Physical Education, Sport Science and Recreation (SAASSPER), “Minutes of Executive Council meeting,” (Port Elizabeth 17 October 1999), 3. [37] Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA), Annual Report 2004/2005 (Pretoria: Government Printers, 2005), 6. [38] www.srsa.gov.za/legislation.asp p.1 [17 January 2007]. [39] Department of Sport and Recreation, “Memorandum of Agreement between the Departments of Sport and Recreation and Recreation South Africa (RECSA),” (Pretoria 17 March 1995), 1-7 [40] Steve V. Tshwete, Address by the Minister of Sport and Recreation on the occasion of the official opening ceremony of the National Community Sangala Festival, Margate 22 August 1996. [41] Steve V. Tshwete, Address by the Minister of Sport and Recreation on the occasion of the launch of the National Wellness Day, Midrand 21 August 1997. [42] Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA), “2006/2007 Business Plan for the Siyadlala Community Mass Participation Programme (Pretoria, 2006), 2-17. [43] Recreation South Africa (RECSA), “Minutes of the Executive Committee of RECSA,” (Pretoria 23 June 1998), 5. [44] www.srsa.gov.za p. 2 [17 January 2007]. Contact Prof. Anneliese Goslin Department Biokinetics, Sport and Leisure Sciences, Center for Leisure Studies University of Pretoria Pretoria SOUTH AFRICA Email: anneliese.goslin@up.ac.za Megan Bam Deputy Director, Department of Sport and Recreation Western Cape Provincial Government Cape Town SOUTH AFRICA Email: mebam@pgwc.gov.za Prof. Darlene Kluka Department of Health, Physical Education and Sport Science Director, Global Centre for Social Change through Women’s Leadership and Sport Kennesaw State University Georgia USA Professor-Extraordinary: Department Biokinetics, Sport and Leisure Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Email: dkluka@kennesaw.edu http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 Public Recreation Service Provision in South Africa: A Historic Comparison between two Political Ideologies Anneliese Goslin, Megan Bam & Darlene Kluka