Australian society and culture were on display during the Commonwealth Games at the Gold Coast whether it was in the performances of the athletes, the participation by the crowds or the coverage by the media. The display was not just of the best and the worst of what makes us tick, but also of the fabric of our society. The values displayed were largely positive with the major exception being the unnecessarily nationalistic approach of the media.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Our political leaders were on display too, although they were mostly shown toleration rather than enthusiastic warmth by athletes and spectators. If they were smart they closely observed what they saw, reflecting on how their own ideological preferences stacked up against the reality of how a big national project was successfully put together.
The Games were a largely successful mix of public and private, federal and state, collective and individual effort and largely cross-partisan rather than the hyper-partisanship that dominates our public political life. Political leaders neglect this successful model at their peril.
Governments take the lead in funding and preparing elite sports men and women. The Australian Institute of Sport and the state institutes of sport should take great credit for this. But so do the various sports bodies, like Swimming Australia and Athletics Australia, run as private organisations through their own boards and administrators, although they still rely on government funding. In some sports individual donors are also helpful. Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, for instance, played a role in supporting the elite swimming program.
The Games was Australian federalism in action at its best and it was striking how the Prime Minister, the Queensland Premier and the Gold Coast Mayor each took pride in their role in funding and/or supporting the Games. The relationship was probably much more uneasy than it looked on the surface, some leaders demanding their time in the sun, which explained the interminable speeches at the Closing Ceremony. But it did seem to be a collaborative effort.
Above all the Games’ sporting competitions illustrated a healthy mix between collective and individual effort. It takes a village to raise an elite sportsman or sportswoman. We praise the talent, resilience and sheer hard work of individuals. But competitors in individual sports acknowledge that they don’t succeed through their own efforts alone, but rely on support by family, friends, schoolteachers and their wider communities.
In team sports the collective efforts were even more visible as teamwork is at the heart of sports like hockey, basketball, netball and rugby. Teamwork often demands the sacrifice of the individual to the larger good as well as individual talent. Each team member has a specified role. Not to be a team player can mean failure no matter how talented an individual is. In these team sports everyone wins together when medals are won.
An even better illustration of selfless teamwork occurs when teams work together in individual sports like cycling. In the longer bike races the team members, each with a role specified by the coach, sacrificed themselves so that one member of the team would ultimately be successful. That is team work at its best.
The Games were also a model for society in many ways. Three of these stand out as illustrating values in which sport is often well ahead of society.
The first came in the equal recognition of the rights and skills of men and women. There was a commitment to an equal gender balance still not found in wider society. The balance wasn’t perfect, but it was pretty good. The number of medals available to men and women was equal. In this respect the Games was better than the cultural norms of some of the competing countries. Sports men and women emerged as leaders for gender equality in public life generally.
The second came in the much greater integration within the program of disabled athletes alongside able bodied fellow competitors. Wheelchair racer Kurt Fearnley was a star of the program and believed that the Games was a model for society as a whole and a driver of social wider social change.
The third came in the examples of generosity towards fellow competitors which occurred alongside fierce competition. Athletes in the 10,000 metres waited at the finish line for less talented athletes to finish. Large fields competed in swimming and athletics sprint races even though many had no chance of victory. Spectators were generous too. They often cheered loudly as cyclists who were kilometres behind passed the finish line or when a weaker athlete struggled to finish. Participation was valued alongside success.
That is not to say that sport is always inclusive. By its nature elite sport is always somewhat exclusive in its search for high achievement. Equality for LGBTQI athletes is only slowly being achieved against social opposition in some countries. Some star athletes, like Caster Semenya from South Africa, have battled bureaucratic doubts in their struggle for full recognition.
Against this background the media persisted in an approach to presentation and commentary which was needlessly hyper-nationalistic. Australian athletes got the lions-share of the coverage. Within events the cameras and commentary often focused on Australians to the exclusion of others. Swimming was the worst. Athletics was better because Australians were not as dominant and the nature of the events, especially field events, was different.
It is only a short step from this sort of media coverage to encouraging an ugly Australian approach to sport in which winning is everything. That side of the Games was certainly not a model for a better society or a healthier culture.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University
