Despite being embraced by a number of organisations and programmes from around the world whose aim is to promote democracy and equality, the legacy of the Gleneagles Agreement is in question, write Oliver Dudfield and Bruce Kidd, as it competes against a growing trend to separate politics from sport.
The historic Gleneagles Agreement signed by the Commonwealth heads of government in 1977 stands out as a key milestone in the association’s efforts to utilise sport as a tool to advance the values of democracy, development and opportunities for all. When the agreement was signed, the idea that sport could make a contribution to promoting these values was fledgling; however, 35 years later the concept is embedded across the Commonwealth, most noticeably in efforts referred to as ‘Sport for Development and Peace’ (SDP).
While Gleneagles focused on competitions in the international arena, in the modern Commonwealth, community-based activities have become a key site for sport’s contribution to promoting the association’s key values. There are many examples of initiatives – inside and outside the Commonwealth – embodying this concept. The Special Olympics movement explicitly uses sports-based programmes to give people with a disability the opportunity to participate in community activities. Numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) across the Commonwealth, such as Magic Bus in India, Sports Coaches Outreach in Southern Africa and Cricket for Change in the UK, use sport as a tool to engage and empower marginalised young people. Governments are also involved. In Australia, the Play by the Rules and Human Rights are Aussie Rules projects address discrimination, and the Indian government’s PYKKA (Panchayat Yuva Krida Aur Khel Abhiyan) scheme promotes sport in rural areas.
SDP programmes use the popularity of sport, and the platform provided through engaging communities in sporting activity, to contribute to development and human rights issues. Many of the key actors in SDP trace their involvement to the end of apartheid in South Africa and the Gleneagles Agreement. As apartheid was being dismantled, the new heads of sport in South Africa, along with many of their allies in frontline states, undertook to rebuild and democratise their sports systems. To support these efforts, they requested that their key international partners incorporate sport into their international cooperation programmes.
The development challenges faced at this time demanded that sport and development not take place in isolation, and increasingly both government and non-government stakeholders came up with innovative strategies aimed at maximising sport’s contribution to wider human rights and development issues. Early pioneers in the SDP field included countries from Sub-Saharan Africa, as well Australia, Canada and the UK; 20 years later it is truly a global movement.
A key component of the Gleneagles Agreement was leveraging the symbolism attached to competing in high-profile international sport. However, in the period since the agreement, sport’s involvement with issues related to the Commonwealth’s core values has changed. In many forums, international sport stakeholders have shied away from tackling contentious issues, citing a need to keep sport and politics separate. In this space, the symbolism of Gleneagles has been replaced by the pragmatism of community-based programming.
Since sport was first recognised as having an important role to play in development programmes, many of the claims made about its contribution have been challenged. The idea that sport-based initiatives could succeed where political and development actors have failed has raised some scepticism. But in truth, the SDP field has matured over the years, and much of the rhetoric that once categorised it has become more measured. The discourse around the field has sharpened, focusing SDP efforts on addressing development challenges, and not on solving them. Successful SDP programmes are carefully measured and closely monitored, and are increasingly coordinated with other development efforts.
Encouragingly, key actors in other sectors – including health, education and justice departments – have recognised the potential of sport-based approaches. New Zealand’s Green Prescription initiative is one example. Health professionals prescribe sport and physical activity to individuals showing signs of non-communicable diseases. In Mozambique, the education ministry is working with UNICEF to establish sport in schools as a tool to promote child-friendly environments, while the UK’s Positive Futures programme is an example of sport being utilised within crime-prevention strategies.
In spite of these examples of good practice, sport-based approaches are still not being significantly embedded in relevant policy frameworks. This represents an area of significant potential, albeit somewhat tempered by calls for SDP to provide more substantial evidence of impact – calls now being taken seriously by SDP actors determined to maximise sport’s contribution.
Since the Gleneagles Agreement, Commonwealth sport has been inextricably linked to efforts to promote democracy, development and opportunities for all. In this time, the appetite for international sport to take a stand on political issues might have waned, and its separation from politics called for, but the SDP field has experienced considerable community-level growth, and the legacy of Gleneagles remains evident in these programmes. The Commonwealth has been at the centre of the growth of the SDP field, and the endorsement by its current leaders for intensified efforts to strengthen SDP initiatives signals a commitment to maintaining the link between Commonwealth sport and the values that draw together this union of nations.
