Kevin Baldeosingh
The life expectancy in Jamaica is 73 years; the infant mortality rate is 15 per 1,000 live births; and the murder rate is 30 per 100,000 persons. In developed nations, by contrast, average life expectancy is in the late 70s; infant mortality is below five per 1,000; and homicides are less than three per 100,000.
But Jamaica got 11 medals in the 2016 Olympic Games: ergo, it's a great country. In fact, the discussion now is how T&T can emulate Jamaica to win more medals in the 2020 Olympics. Nobody even asks if athletic achievement brings any tangible or even intangible benefits to a nation. That is taken as a given.
However, in their book Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot, writers Plinio Mendoza and Carlos Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa say in respect to Cuba: "Any government that haphazardly allocates its society's resources in a single direction can achieve a deceptive and incredibly limited accomplishment, but this will always be at the expense of other sectors that would necessarily be left on the fringes of the development efforts." In 2016, Cuba ranked 18th in the Olympic Games with 11 medals, equalling Jamaica which ranked 16th. But, since Cuba's population is 11 million and Jamaica's three million, Jamaica's resource allocation is even more skewed than Fidel's socialist paradise.
Yet in T&T the default premise seems to be that athletics programmes more than repay the investment that the State and private sector make. If justification arises at all, the assertions are that sporting glory (1) inspires young people and imparts positive values to them; (2) instils national pride; and (3) provides publicity for the nation. But all these claims are tendentious.
To start in reverse order: neither tourist nor investor is going to say: "Wow, people from that country really run fast, I'd better go there." And whatever national pride we get from Olympic medals does not and will not cause any change in behaviour: murderers will continue to murder and litterbugs will continue to litter. Which brings me to the main justifications.
To start with "inspiration": the core argument proffered by sports defenders is that the effort and dedication of athletes set an example for every field of endeavour. However, the praise for this kind of dedication can actually devalue effort in other areas: for it equates effort and dedication at a game (ie fun) with effort and dedication in the more crucial aspects of life, such as acquiring a marketable skill or providing for your family.
A runner or thrower winning a medal only inspires those youths who want to run fast or throw objects very far. Such an achievement does not motivate a majority of young people to achieve within their own skill set, or be better citizens, nor does it even improve their self-image. Indeed, if athletic glory does make more youths to focus on sports, that would be to their detriment as well as the country's. After all, only a few of them will reach championship level, hence ensuring that the majority become failures by their own criteria.
The cultural message sent by glorification of athletes undermines the values needed to make a country developed. T&T is even more guilty than Jamaica of this, perhaps because energy revenues gave us money to waste. Of all our international achievers, we laud athletes and beauty queens the most. Of course, we also celebrate the top achievers in SEA and CAPE, but even that is treated as a competition, where success rather than learning is celebrated. That is why we have buildings named for athletes, but not for VS Naipaul or Derek Walcott.
As for imparting positive values, this is the most vacuous claim of all. There is no evidence that participating in sports teaches fair play or teamwork outside of the specific activity. Moreover, as Dr David Bratt asserted in his Guardian column last Tuesday: "For practical purposes, every gold medal won at the Olympic Games since 1976 is tainted by drugs. The athletes know it, the medical advisers know it, the media know it and above all the organisers know it." So youngsters who enter sports with the intention of competing internationally soon learn that the overriding value is that it's okay to cheat to win and, concomitantly, that only a loser doesn't play the game.
At best, therefore, it seems to me that a country whose athletes medal in the Olympic Games gets nothing but boasting rights. Which brings me to the crux of the matter: will T&T be spending scarce resources in order to win more medals four years from now? As Mendoza et al point out: "It's true that Cuba wins gold medals than France in the Olympics. But the only thing this reveals is that the poor Caribbean island uses its meagre resources in the stupidest way anyone could think of."
Sports are recreation and entertainment, and the money a government allocates to athletics should reflect no more than that. This is why I consider the appointment of Diego Martin Central MP Darryl Smith as Sports Minister to be the most effective ministerial appointment in the entire Cabinet: because, from the optics alone, this sends a message that the Keith Rowley administration considers athletics to be a low priority.
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a history textbook.