Uruguay's Luis Suarez risked his reputation in his country's interest at the World Cup. Many diplomats and leaders often face the same dilemma, say T Nandakumar.
One of the defining moments of FIFA 2010 happened during the Uruguay-Ghana match on July 2. Rewind to the last moments of extra-time. Both teams tied at 1-1 with about two minutes to go. A goal by one team would ensure its passage to the semi-finals. Every single player in the field is trying to score that all-important goal(or prevent a goal from being scored against them).
Ghana almost does it. The goalkeeper beaten and on the ground, the ball traveling to the net! Luis Suarez, one of Uruguay's star forwards, is on the goalline, the ball is coming at him. A split second, he stops the ball with his hand. A penalty kick for Ghana, a red card for Suarez.
Ghana's top scorer Gyan takes the penalty kick, misses. The rest is history: Ghana loses in the penalty shoot-out.
Suarez is a hero in Uruguay, a villain and cheat in Africa.
What is he, really?
The FIFA tournament is about winning the Cup. It is about scoring more goals than your opponent. There is national prestige involved, public expectations and personal prestige. Given the glamour and money associated with club football, there are lots of personal ambitions as well.
Suarez had scored brilliant goals earlier and had become a pillar of his team and hope for his country. Here he is, at this moment, faced with a situation of certain defeat for his team and a sure exit from the tournament. He knew he could not stop that ball from going into the net by using his feet, chest or head.
He had, at best, a few milliseconds to think and act. He had seen the 'Hand of God' in earlier matches. He knew very well that in this situation he would get caught and get marching orders. His reputation would definitely take a beating. He knew that a penalty kick would be awarded and Uruguay could still lose.
In that split second what matters to him is to do something that would give his team a chance, however slender it may be. Probably he could have made a dive to prove that he has done his best and let the ball into the net!
Instead, he stops the ball with his hand in full view of everyone. No feigning, no arguments, plain violation of rules. He gets a red card, walks out, waits on the sidelines.
Penalty taken and missed; Suarez jumps with joy. He has given his team a fighting chance where none existed.
Hero? Villain? Cheat?
People will describe him from their individual perspectives. For him, he staked his personal reputation and accepted the punishment and gave his team, his country, a chance to win. International football pundits would always describe him as a player who broke the code.
Fast forward to international arena of politics, diplomacy and economic affairs. Do we find parallels here?
International negotiations are about adjustments and compromises. Many of the negotiators representing their respective countries come to the table with clear mandates to protect the interests of their people, but with a willingness to make adjustments in their positions if they can see overall good in the process.
Be it WTO, Climate change negotiations or security related issues, the approach is the same. There is no referee here to blow the whistle, nor are there any red cards. Results are not declared on the basis of penalty shoot-outs.
There is always another match another time.
Negotiators often face the same dilemma that Suarez faced: of risking reputations and breaking negotiations. In many such situations, country representatives have taken positions protecting their country's interests (as they understood it), leading to breakdown of talks, inviting international criticism.
The world cried "foul", they did what the country expected them to do.
Move closer to organisations that people work in. There arise situations when one is called to stand up and stop something which could cause damage to a larger cause that one strongly believes in. The referee in such cases is the 'boss' and he may cry foul and you may pay the price. But you do it because you are willing to take a 'punishment' for standing up for something which you think is a cause or value for which you do not want to make compromises.
Many of my colleagues in the civil service can recount instances from their lives where they have stood up and stopped something (not necessarily against the rules) and have been penalized for doing so.
I am sure that many in society, whether they are in the private sector or in the social service arena have done the same in their lives. They all knew that they will be penalized, but still they did it.
Here it is not so much national or team pride, but a larger commitment to a value system. But they faced the dilemma!
Life, of course, is not like football. There are no black and white dos and don'ts. There are areas with clarity, but most areas are grey. There are no independent (howsoever incompetent they may be) referees.
Most often, the referees are those with the power to decide and impose penalties on you. There are times when you feel that you need to violate an established norm for upholding a different norm, idea or thought that you think is a larger cause from your personal point of view. Most often you do not violate the rule, but you face the dilemma of choosing between penalty and the cause you believe in.
Most of us face this dilemma in life sometime or the other. Is Suarez a hero or a villain? Take your pick!
(T Nandakumar is a former secretary Union Ministry of Agriculture)
Photograph: Reuters
