Pietersen portrays himself as the victim of a racist quota system that promoted mediocre coloured players at the expense of better white cricketers. He admits he reacted the wrong way when he was told by his state team Natal that his services were not required. Pietersen blamed the quota system, claiming that spin bowler and opening batsman Ghulam Bodi had benefited at his expense and that he was the better player, but neither claim was true.1 There is no doubt that Pietersen is now by far the better player, but at the time Bodi looked the better bet. They played in different positions and even allowing for the quota system there were ten places left in the team that Pietersen could compete for regardless of his skin colour. Bodi's bowling average was better than Pietersen's and his batting average was superior as well – Bodi was the better player at that time and deserved his place on merit. Pietersen did not deserve a place in the Natal side ahead of Bodi and he was not competing with Bodi anyway. The quota system and Bodi had been unfairly maligned by a then mediocre Pietersen who had potential, but had given no indication then that he would develop into one of the batsmen in the world, but even if Bodi had been favoured through the quota system, would that have hindered Pietersen's progress? The quota system had not held back players of the calibre of Smith, so why if Pietersen was as good as he claimed to be could he not fight for his place and prove the doubters wrong?

According to Pietersen a meeting with South African cricket's supremo Dr Ali Bacher convinced both the young Kevin and his father Janie that the young man had no future in South African cricket, so he set out for England – he now sports a three lions tattoo proudly, but Pietersen was fortunate as his mother was English, so he qualified not on merit, but by taking advantage of a rule that offered him the chance to pick another country to pledge his international allegiance to. But for an accident of ancestry Pietersen would have had no choice but to earn his place in South African cricket on merit. While, congratulating Pietersen on his achievements, (they are formidable) we cannot helping noticing the irony of a white South African, born into privilege and enjoying the racist breaks that apartheid flung his way at least in his formative years complaining so bitterly at an attempt to redress the balance that in reality did not affect him,while ignoring the benefits that South Africa's first quota system – apartheid – had given to his race.

*****

Edward Habane was considered by many to be the finest black batsman that South Africa produced. Although he occasionally played with and against the best white players his country produced at that time he was never given an opportunity to test himself against the finest players in the world during his career. He was a contemporary of one of the finest opening batsmen in the history of African cricket at least, the white South African, Barry Richards. Habane's crime was to be born black in an era when that meant he was denied the opportunity given to white players. Dr Ali Bacher, the man Pietersen blames for his decision to leave South Africa, systematically denied opportunities to Habane and other non-white players in the dark days of apartheid. Habane never had the opportunity to travel due to the racist apartheid laws, so a career that could and should have been the pioneer of black African cricket is remembered as one that should have been rather than for the achievements that his talent merited. He played for his country once, but did not distinguish himself. Meanwhile, international sporting isolation of South Africa due to apartheid denied Richards the opportunity to establish his reputation as one of the best openers to have played the game.

Pietersen's complaints pale into insignificance in comparison to the experiences of Habane and others of his generation. He is not the victim of a racist policy that he claims to be, while Habane certainly was – and arguably Richards too. In fact, Pietersen's objections to south Africa's recent quota system are racist. Positive discrimination, or the quota system, was an attempt to encourage and develop the sport among non-white races because their talent had been neglected for decades under apartheid. Habane could have represented his country on merit despite the racist laws that held him back, but few black youngsters were inspired to pick up a bat, if they could afford to play at all, because of his achievements as they knew that it could not lead to a career then. The performances of Makhaya Ntini and Hashim Amla and Ashwell Prince for example can do that as they show that talent will be nurtured and if it matures it will be rewarded in the new South Africa. Cricket will thrive in the townships because of the quota system that encouraged the development of non-white talent in that country. If that crime against humanity – apartheid – had not existed there would have been no need at all to develop the sport among the non white races in southern Africa, especially South Africa itself. The quota system was necessary to redress the imbalance caused by South Africa's first quota system – one that excluded blacks totally in favour of white cricketers – many of whom were mediocre at best. Where were the Pietersens' complaints about that?

Call it positive discrimination, political correctness, or whatever, but the much maligned quota system was essential if cricket was to develop in South Africa as a sport that included everyone on merit regardless of their skin colour, but to to achieve that the actual racist discrimination of the past had to be redressed – not for players like Habane, for whom it was already too late, – but for those of the present like Ntini and then the present and future like Amla and the generations to come. Pietersen thinks it discriminated against him when in actual fact it didn't, but nowhere in his complaints does he say what should have been done to develop talented non-white players who didn't benefit from the opportunities that white players enjoyed as apartheid's birth-right for those of his complexion. Those who condemn positive discrimination in examples like this maintain the status quo, claiming that their view is a meritocracy, but they ignore the fact that the current situation is the product of discrimination – negative discrimination – that denied any non-white person the chance to compete on merit and that it will take time, effort and initiatives such as the quota system to redress the balance to an extent that it is even possible to compete on merit with an even playing field. South Africa and its quota system should be applauded rather than condemned. They also forget that the previous quota system not only excluded non-white talent, but also forced an exodus of white and mixed race talent too.

*****

In 1976 England's captain was a white South African who had left the land of his birth because he was not allowed to play Test Match cricket in his homeland and this was due to the quota system that dominated South African cricket at the time – apartheid. Basil D'Oliveira was born in Cape Town in 1931. He was classified as coloured, so he could not play Test Match cricket, but captained the 'coloured' side. In 1960 he came to England, having been encouraged to do so by the great commentator John Arlott. Four years later he was granted British citizenship and played Test cricket for England against Australia in 1968. A fine century in the final test seemed to have guaranteed that he would make the winter tour. Unfortunately it was to South Africa, whose cricket board put pressure on the MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) not to pick D'Oliveira, and the MCC caved in. The South African authorities believed that the selection of D'Oliveira would have resulted in the cancellation of the tour, but following an injury to another player D'Oliveira was included, partly due to protest at his unfair exclusion. Then South African Prime Minister and ardent supporter of Nazism John Vorster cancelled the tour despite negotiations. The sporting boycott of apartheid followed. White activists bravely condemned apartheid even though it benefited them and some paid with their lives.

Some of the best South African players of that era like Barry Richards were denied the international careers that they should have had. Richards easily met residence qualifications to play for England and could have become an all-time great of the game. Others like Tony Greig chose to play international cricket for England. Many white South Africans came and played county cricket in England – some of whom would have played for their country but for the international boycott of South Africa. Mike Proctor played for Gloucestershire and was a talented all-rounder, Clive Rice captained Nottinghamshire and Kepler Wessels played county cricket for Sussex before emigrating and representing Australia. Wessels later returned to his homeland and played for South Africa after the fall of apartheid as did Rice. Non-white players were denied the opportunity to play county cricket, whereas D'Oliveira, Greig and later Pietersen all had the opportunity to play county cricket while waiting to qualify for England.

Kevin Pietersen complains about quota systems discriminating against him, but he is wrong, and he fails to acknowledge the benefits that his race enjoyed in South Africa due to discriminatory laws of the apartheid era. Graeme Smith accepted the quota system, won his place on merit without difficulty and captains a team that is multi-racial and there entirely on merit – a fantastic achievement only a decade after the end of apartheid. International cricketing isolation and the subsequent quota system was a small price to pay for the chance to finally compete for places on merit in an even playing field and ensure that cricket has a future throughout South Africa.