Here lies a tyrant
19 Feb 2013
MARK KEOHANE, writing in Business Day Sport Monthly, says former South African rugby chief Louis Luyt was a power-hungry egotist who did more harm than good in his role as leader.
Louis Luyt is dead but the lie that defines his legacy to the game as legendary must also be buried. He was destructive in everything he did as president of the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu) and motivated by his own agenda and ego and he was a risk to the future of the game.
He functioned on fiction because only he knew what was closer to fact.
This is a condemnation of Luyt the Sarfu president. It is not a reflection on his right to be respected as a father, husband and friend.
He was a crass leader who thrived on the humiliation of others and he caused pain to many people with decisions that were not based on rugby but on his own insecurity and paranoia. There can’t be reward for lacking emotional intelligence and there can never be justification for the chaos.
Luyt’s legacy was a dictatorship that threatened more than a sport’s unity. He harmed the sport and he embarrassed the sport without consequence or without remorse. He did it regularly and saw it as refusing to be intimidated.
He was a reminder of everything the world detested in apartheid South Africa but he survived on the fears of those who were uncertain about the future and ill-informed and still related to noise as leadership, when introspection and reflection were words more appropriate to change. A legacy is earned through innovation and the impact of an action; not an ability just to react.
Luyt was a fighter and his strength was based on survival. Sarfu needed calm and vision and he provided chaos and confrontation.
It suited his needs because the noise was part of the illusion that he was taking charge of rugby’s future. He was a fascinating character because of his contradictions, but he was not good for the game and he stifled progress through his inability to transform his own thinking. He was unsure about his status and he always overcompensated with boasts when unsure, be it because of lack of knowledge or because he threatened his ability to use Sarfu to define his influence in a community that used his voice when necessary but never fully endorsed him as part of the exclusive brotherhood.
This was down to class and not race. It was this lack of acceptance that tortured him. But he knew about survival because of a background that battled poverty. Wealth would also be measured on status and worth. To get there he would fight. So he fought because that meant not allowing for discussion and not risking being exposed on an intellectual level.
He was a clever man but he lacked introspection because of insecurities in not having a high schooling. It meant he only knew how to make statements.
In his world that was strength. To ask a question was to invite trouble.
Leadership is at its most seductive when those in charge can take pleasure out of another’s achievement. Luyt could never do that because he could not even take pleasure out of his own successes.
He had an incredible work ethic, which intimidated and compensated for an inability to see beyond what worked for him personally and as a leader. He also blurred the power of knowledge with the gathering of information on individuals to further entrench his presidency. He had menace when there should have been mentorship. He never made an apology for any of his actions and a man who always thinks he gets it right is a man who is rarely getting it right.
He embraced those vulnerable to his projections of strength and bullying and he never saw the contradiction in how he applied the morality of the God-fearing man and the lack of morality in his manipulation of people.
We once debated loyalty and he was absolute. People, he said, crossed him once and thought they had won. He told them to enjoy the feeling because he would make sure they spent the rest of their lives reminded of what price to pay for betrayal in loyalty.
His life was interesting but he was too preoccupied in the potential of others to be the enemy that he found a reason to justify an agenda that in turn would justify a reaction for a confrontational engagement.
His ego would never allow him modesty and he insisted he had earned the right to be called doctor. Titles and status are what he felt defined his characters. His actions were for gain. When was it ever about rugby?
His rugby world was a creation to compensate for what he felt he lacked in a personal space. He could be charming but his charm was too often determined by the personal gain. He bored easily if he was not the primary beneficiary. His mind was always busy but the intent wasn’t always flattering and he excused any criticism as a necessary to protect the game from those who didn’t understand it. He blamed the government and rugby was his status for greater acceptance in an Afrikaans elite that would never see him as their equal.
The bully was his default mechanism and if he was full of bravado he didn’t have to front his fears of being inferior. He did not trust anyone but celebrated just how many enemies he had. Enemies caused fear. Friends could only cause confusion.
He was convinced he needed no one to survive but he never understood that to survive is not to necessarily inspire. Not that it would have been a consideration. He was angry that he was disliked although he denied it and there was an element in him that deliberately added to the dislike. The man who made rugby his kingdom was always aware that the boy in him wanted acknowledgement and reward.
He never found his place in South African society and always felt he had been short-changed. If he wasn’t getting the recognition then why would he celebrate anyone else.
He took nothing from the game unless he was the beneficiary. He justified everything in the name of Springbok rugby and the Afrikaans culture and he manipulated the game that represented the culture more than a sport. Where most would find a smile he found suspicion.
I liked him but he was not happy.
I always got the feeling he wouldn’t even allow for that because that could be an admission he had not won.
He was always in conflict and his tenure was about fighting whoever he felt provided a cover to the real issue, which was his insecurity.
He took but he gave little.
It is one thing to preach from a self-made pedestal but a leader of men is also an inspiration to the very men he leads.
He wanted mystique but then couldn’t resist telling you what he had done for South African rugby. He created an identity he believed would give him acceptance and he alienated every dominating personality.
He was a preacher of what he wanted portrayed, yet the intention to be liked and revered was not something he could ask for, so as he lost a disciple who realised the legend is what makes the man but the actions of the man that confirms the flaws in the legend.
If the game was his passion and the future of the game was his only concern we would be talking about his vision, his succession plan and his leadership.
The story would be of the guy who turned rags into silk but knew God. It is embarrassing. The only thing he gave rugby was conflict and blood. He adopted a militant style approach in which he spoke and never allowed for a response.
He stripped players of power and humiliated them and threatened their futures in the media. In a country where fear and conflict were positives that someone was in charge, he put himself in charge of the game and was never asked what he was actually going to do to make it the game for all South Africans.
He used the divide and rule among blacks and whites because he recognised weakness in an individual and played the vulnerabilities to facilitate whatever outcome that comes with uncertainty.
He took Nelson Mandela and the government to court to prove he was still a white Afrikaner who would not be intimidated by the black government.
He made sure it was a page one report.
He did it, he said, to show Afrikaners still had a voice and still had fight. He then used rugby as the punching bag.
He used culture, white fears and black unknowns to have so many applauding his strengths. But it was never about resolution or calm. It was about conflict and chaos because when there is no fight then there is usually reflection. In a fight there is only time to react.
Luyt’s legacy conflicts with every single entity that makes up the fabric of the game. He took the game he supposedly loved and made it his own game. He was an untouchable because he manipulated the executive structure – and when fear no longer sufficed neither did his games inspire even laughter.
He still couldn’t see the moral crime in subjecting Mandela to take the witness stand. He claimed victory but it also confirmed stupidity.
He tried so hard to create an identity of the Lions but he was a railway clerk whose arrogance and defiance was a misrepresentation of the culture whose silence he interpreted as a fight.
He fired by fax and turned the most disgraceful of acts into a kind of legend which applauded a man who was prepared to make the hard calls. All he knew was hardship and that is all he gave back to South African rugby.
It is disgusting that he was allowed to operate in such isolation and as a law unto himself. He clearly had a mind that favoured his own survival but emotional intelligence is the result of an environment and tutorship and being taught, not self-taught.
He never added value to the game’s evolution. There is no legacy to applaud. His rugby administration was a contradiction. Morality was as interpretive as was loyalty and betrayal.
Rugby was the platform for Luyt to turn a lost soul into a tortured one and he tried to make everyone believe that his soul knew only sacrifice.
He was a sad man because not only did he derive pleasure at the expense of others but the ultimate humiliation was of his own doing because his identity and influence believed there was substance to his existence, but he could never get what he thought was a show of strength. And arrogance was ignorance and in degrees of ignorance the worst form is when there is a belief that all the ugly qualities that make a leader uninspiring are presented as strengths of a no-nonsense leader.
Luyt did not entertain minds that would expose the limitations of his own and it is one thing to fight but another to succeed without a fight.
A day before his death no one cared for his rants. A day after the myth is magnified. The platitudes have been predictable and inoffensive but the inane nature is more insult than compliment to the King of Ellis Park and self-proclaimed King of the Rugby Jungle.
In death he did no evil. In life he only knew evil.
Luyt’s final act as South African rugby chief was to embarrass the intellect and integrity of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who are excited by inclusion on the world map and not offended that it was not listed as the chosen planet.
The good doctor was so insecure at what he hadn’t experienced because of his environment that he believed titles would create the illusion of intelligence and that fear was just another way of making sure no one disputed he was the boss.
His decision to humiliate one of the world’s saints was the act of a sinner; alternatively a man who was showing his lack of class, education and upbringing. His attempts to justify his action and his conviction in doing so belong on The Jerry Springer Show.
He always spoke of not needing to be popular and then he found something in popularity that he sold to himself as weakness.
Come to think of it, he rarely spoke about what was good for South African rugby. He always spoke about what he was doing for South African rugby and he created the chaos and never had time to explain what it was that kept him so busy. He didn’t give South African rugby professionalism. He didn’t care. In the last few years all he did was condemn the government. He manipulated the weakness in rugby’s administration to impress his strength.
He was an impostor as a leader and the game deserved so much more. Luyt, when he lived, benefited from the illusion of his leadership.
Don’t allow the lie to continue.
– This article first appeared in the March issue of Business Day Sport Monthly, which is distributed FREE with the newspaper on the second last Friday of every month.
748 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] Show All
20 Feb 2013, 01:08 am
Not a great piece of journalism granted, slighting the dead could be classed as poor form or cowardly repercussions unless they were perhaps slighting Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot then their slight might carry some validation
20 Feb 2013, 01:16 am
@skopdiekan-700:
So you’ve never done anything wrong?
Must successful businessmen end up in the hot place rather than playing harp on a cloud anyway
20 Feb 2013, 01:16 am
One of Keo’s worst pieces. With the similarly terrible “Why winning isn’t everything” (designed to gloss over the Kings anticipated weekly humiliations) Keo is on a role.
20 Feb 2013, 01:25 am
@ShaunB-703:
> Keo is on a role.
Role it is, the role of Political Commissar to the Kings and reporting to Comrade Godfather Cheeky
20 Feb 2013, 01:31 am
The comp hasn’t even started and already the Kings are embroiled in controversy.
Accused by the Force of spying.
What next?
20 Feb 2013, 01:40 am
Success isn’t measured in money that where so many ardent ambitions get it so palpably wrong
Ask the likes of Brett Kebble Hansie Cronje Oscar Pistorious in retrospect if they’re as proud of their ambitious achievements after all that chasing money brought them so much success. Or they still singing with Frank Sinatra that they so proudly did it ‘My Way’?
20 Feb 2013, 01:41 am
Ditto for Louis Luyt
20 Feb 2013, 01:52 am
@skopdiekan-706:
How do You measure it?
20 Feb 2013, 01:57 am
Ask your conscience how it should be measured what represents a meaningful fulfillment of life. Kebble Hansie Pistorious etc would trade places with a meaningless nobody in a jiffy after all the chase for success brought them so much untold misery.
20 Feb 2013, 02:03 am
@skopdiekan-709:
Maybe at the end but not at the peak of their careers
20 Feb 2013, 02:06 am
@skopdiekan-706:
> in retrospect if they’re as proud of their ambitious achievements after all that chasing money brought them so much success. Or they still singing with Frank Sinatra that they so proudly did it ‘My Way’
Rather ask guys like Rupert, Kerzner, Whitey Basson or Steve Booysen if they’re proud of their achievements
20 Feb 2013, 02:06 am
It’s like how many eulogies of affection will be written about Mugabe after he kicks the bucket. You probably find some damning accounts to his legacy and then some close confidantes and associates may have some complimentary things to say about his longevity and cunning political savvy
20 Feb 2013, 02:11 am
@skopdiekan-712:
There’s a huge difference between a ruthless businessman and a genocidal Dictator
20 Feb 2013, 02:12 am
There will always be heroes and villains on the stages of human accolades and antipathy where humanity need to vilify their ambitious intensity through the activities and heroics of their puppet masters and heroes.
Just that one person’s puppet master hero is another person’s villain and vice versa
20 Feb 2013, 02:41 am
It’s the end that counts not the peak of the career. Its the end game that matters how the life was utilized for benefit and gain or squandered away in vain pursuits of intensive search of material achievements. Only the individual passing through the portal of death is aware of how much or how little success he actually achieved in life.
20 Feb 2013, 04:20 am
@ufo-66: I’m with you mate. I’m also outta here. This is an article written in poor taste. I never like Louis, but to write such an article after his death is not only cowardly, but reflects poorly on the author. It says much, much more about Keo than Luyt.
Gutter journalism comes to mind. What a sad, little man Keo has proven to be, one with a massive insecurity chip on his shoulders. I’m through with this site.
20 Feb 2013, 04:34 am
@keo-133: I’ll tell you why. Because the man is dead. Had you published this before he died, you would have had more credibility in your claim to want to spark debate. However, to publish something like this when the man is dead is cowardly and inappropriate, regardless of your claim to want others to make a counter argument.
Furthermore, as previously pointed out by ufo, such an article shows complete disregard for your bloggers. I, for one, enjoy a good debate, but I won’t get dragged down into debating about the personal characteristics of someone who has just recently died. Complete insensitivity. After all, we’re not talking about a Hitler, or a Stalin…
20 Feb 2013, 04:40 am
Some people here are real two faced.
I can imagine most of you at one time or another have called an individual an idiot or stated that you dont like him then the person dies and all of a sudden you are saying he was a great guy, so nice etc.
20 Feb 2013, 05:03 am
That’s it for me too. Had enough of the cocaine sniffing, ***** pumping liberal’s attention seeking rants. I will personally add a version of your eulogy on a blog somewhere when the day you OD.
20 Feb 2013, 07:04 am
Describing the arch-racist as a “tyrant” is treating him exceedingly kindly. There are many in Cape Town and elsewhere that have more appropriate nouns plus adjectives to truly do the absolute, accurate description of an odious animal.
What no one can deny is that he was a racist to the very core and as dishonest as that breed is to be found.
Apartheid was for the extreme benefit of ‘spoorwee werkers soos hy en anders soos hulle’. From a Jack (maybe even Jill) to a ‘king’.
No one can deny he was a closet Broederbonder and even when he played a less official role in S.A. in the ’90′s his right-hand man, De Beer, was the head of the AfrikanerBond.
Louis the skunk did not pay any price for all the deceit and harm and dishonour he visited on this country.
20 Feb 2013, 07:11 am
Molo Drieballas.
20 Feb 2013, 07:20 am
Keo, Keo , Keo about 10 days ago you delivered a vicious left hook to leave the flock reeling when you knocked their much loved and vaunted ‘verkrampte’ rugby.
Now you give a double knock-out blow with this gem of an exposure of one of their rugby gods. You know they cannot and do not really focus enough to read and, as is to be expected, they even less appreciate the need to truly comprehend the written word.
You will not easily be forgiven for your lack of appreciation of your flock(obviously of backward goats) and do not thus be surprised if the wagons are slowly drawn into a circle for their inner protection.
What may save you is the unshakeable addiction they suffer from, enforced by their inability to understand and manage it.
20 Feb 2013, 07:22 am
Wil jy he(kappie p die ‘e’) dat jou skedel vergruis moet word?
20 Feb 2013, 07:35 am
Drieball you missed your buddies the badminton and table tennis heroes.
20 Feb 2013, 08:52 am
If this was an obituary on Cheeky Watson some these same attitudes of moral indignation and disgust would be clapping hands in uproarious applause..
20 Feb 2013, 09:02 am
@gunther-724: Nah, hard to miss them when they’re in your head 24/7. I would love an invite to one of those tea parties….
Madfuckinghattersbash indeed.
20 Feb 2013, 09:11 am
1. So the author also only does things for his own gain (which is his right)
2. Writes a one sided and negative article (Which is his right)
3. Often condemns people without seeing the other side (Which is his right)
****… Am I now righting about Luyt or the author…
20 Feb 2013, 10:09 am
@Heavens Game-448: Am a rabid
Sharks supporter who enjoys speaking to all people on the rugby
divide.
20 Feb 2013, 10:23 am
@The Rangerman-518: Absolutely
best post on this matter
20 Feb 2013, 10:41 am
@Transformation-673: Hey pal.I actually dont care
What I do care about is his attitude which has led to UFO(a stormers supporter whom i like) leaving the site.
If you like being force fed someone elses opinion,so be it.
20 Feb 2013, 10:47 am
@BrumbiesBoy-685: He did reply.Within +- 50 posts of UFO,s
20 Feb 2013, 11:02 am
@ryecatcher-730: ryecatcher
Like you I’ll miss ufo; he is gentleman with a keen sense of fairness.
Like you I’d be very happy if he would return.
He has departed on a matter of principle, & he is a grown man, fully aware of the consequences of that decision – we must respect and abide that decision.
Circumstances may change, and he may or may not return, who knows?
At least he did not leave in a fit of egotistical pique (as some do), but out of concern for decency & fairness. Respect & accept that.
There is an open door policy here – anyone can come & go, & virtually say what they please.
That’s why this site is so popular.
At least if ufo were to return, he’ll likely do so proudly under his own nick, “ufo”, not surreptitiously like some others.
{life goes on}
20 Feb 2013, 11:49 am
@ryecatcher-731: Thanks Rye, will check it out.
20 Feb 2013, 12:16 pm
@ryecatcher-668: Yeah, I found it thanks (#133 for my future reference).
Pointless replying to it though as the damage has already been done.
Startibartfast was also a good oke.
20 Feb 2013, 22:41 pm
Compare this well written, balanced and respectful article by New Zealander Tony Johnstone -
As for Louis Luyt, well at the peak of his powers Louis was a somewhat villainous figure in the eyes of New Zealanders, as he was, at times I’m sure, to many South Africans.
He was seen as a power broker behind the Cavaliers tour that caused so much division in the NZ game, and after rising to the top of South African Rugby, and playing such a role in making the 1995 RWC tournament such a historic success, Louis put noses out of joint with some less than diplomatic comments at the post-tournament dinner following South Africa’s epic win over the All Blacks.
Roll forward to Cape Town 2001 when I made two significant purchases. One was a bracelet for my new girlfriend…now my wife, the other was a copy of the “unauthorised” Max du Preez biography of Louis Luyt, which I found so utterly fascinating that I read it cover to cover on the flight home.
I discussed the book on my sports spot on the Newstalk radio show with the country’s leading broadcaster, Paul Holmes, who had met and was also fascinated by Louis. Our conversations sparked such interest in the book that a shipment of copies had to be imported into New Zealand.
Armed with information from the book, I set up an interview with Dr Luyt two years later in Durban. I told Holmes (who co-incidentally also died last week) I was going to ask all the tough questions he had failed to ask when he’d interviewed him, on account of him being “seduced” by the charms of his host!
Easier said than done. We arrived at the Luyt home near Durban and were met with such effusive hospitality that I found it nigh impossible to take a hard-line approach. I tried, but he was a master of talking around a curly question without really answering it, and seemed genuinely aggrieved by the suggestion that he was, as so many had claimed, a bully.
Our crew eventually left, having done our interview, cleaned up the platter of delicious sandwiches, drunk fine coffee, politely declined the offer of a beer, chatted to Louis and his lovely wife Adri, and admired his beautiful home. It was a very enjoyable experience and while the hour-long interview was well received back home, I knew that I had been denied the really hard-hitting feature I had gone looking for because I too had found it hard to get past the charming side of Louis Luyt.
Dr Luyt was not perfect. He made plenty of enemies, often with people he’d been close to, and he brought a lot of criticism on himself, but there is also something to admire about what he was able to achieve, especially from such humble beginnings. His role in seeing off the rebel World Rugby Corporation (WRC) should never be understated….it was he who made the most significant move when he made the Springboks an offer they couldn’t refuse, breaking the back of the player-led revolution.
I am just glad that I was able to meet with him, and see the “other” side of him, to be able to put some balance into my perceptions of the man when much of what we had read and heard about him from afar was the controversial stuff.
21 Feb 2013, 09:29 am
This is worst article I have read in many years.
21 Feb 2013, 16:38 pm
When the late Christopher Hitchens wrote an article rejoicing in the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell it was a culmination of many articles slating the man for making comments like “the victims of 9/11 brought their deaths upon themselves” and other such comments. Hitchens was dishing Falwell a spoonful of his own medicine.
Dancing on evils grave can be justified but Keo’s cowardly attack on Luyt cannot ever be justified. Where was his ire when Luyt was alive? Too scared to prod him when he could react. Keo has always suffered from short man syndrome but I never realized he was coward too. Of course their is another obvious difference too Hitchens was an intellectual giant and a talented scribe, Keo is a just a bitter and twisted SA rugby reject and I wonder if his business dealings would survive similar scrutiny?
24 Feb 2013, 05:19 am
Better Luyt than never.
Naah, changed my mind. I’ll rather go with Never.
24 Feb 2013, 06:18 am
He was a crass leader who thrived on the humiliation of others and he caused pain to many people with decisions that were not based on rugby but on his own insecurity and paranoia. There can’t be reward for lacking emotional intelligence and there can never be justification for the chaos.
Think carefully you might be talking about your own achievements here.
24 Feb 2013, 06:36 am
“I liked him but he was not happy.”
What did you like about him, f me you are not the kinda guy I would want to like me. Is this Cheeky talking and you taking notes?
24 Feb 2013, 07:12 am
@WhatIf-32: yeah if you class courage as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
24 Feb 2013, 07:26 am
@keo-151: Sound like you got one eye on Oz in case of escape needed. Sucking up to our Jake who is a rising star in Australia. Rising in stature and influence in case you need him in future. You are the ultimate political animal but I do not believe Jake will fall for your overtures again. Once bitten twice shy and all that. You are a boat that will shatter eventually on the sharp rocky shore you created for yourself.
24 Feb 2013, 07:48 am
@jet jungle-742:
Any idiot can see that Jake White is pure class whe it comes to students of the game. As for morons..well you tell me what you consider a good coach.
24 Feb 2013, 07:50 am
Getting on my high horse this morning. Sorry jet. You are quite correct.
24 Feb 2013, 08:06 am
@Predawn-744: No problem I do that a lot and fall of a lot too.;)
24 Feb 2013, 08:29 am
eech…I see Jake’s name and automatically assume another treehugging so called South African is having a go at him.
24 Feb 2013, 09:01 am
@Predawn-746: Tough one that Jake forged in the boiler room of SA sport politics. Had to deal with a lot of **** and still succeeded against the odds.
2 Mar 2013, 04:41 am
@CharlesM-342: Hey Keo most people are just holding the mirror up to the article you have written. A hatchet job if ever I have seen one. An attempt to rewrite history after a man’s death, and unlike you I never really liked the man myself. Just think what spindoctor/writer can do with your history once you’re not there to protect yourself anymore.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.