Eighteen-year-old Mokgadi ‘Caster’ Semenya is being celebrated as a national hero in South Africa after winning the 800 metres at the World Athletics Championships, but the decision by international athletics officials to order a gender verification test has stirred deep anger – and brought accusations of prejudice against the country and the continent.

Many in South Africa feel a victory by their talented young athlete is being tarnished by bad losers and a world all too  ready to mock. Sensitivities to prejudice are never far from the surface in the country where apartheid white minority rule ended just 15 years ago.

South Africans point out that headlines such as “Is she really a HE?”, in Britain’s Daily Mail, and the question of gender verification only surfaced when Semenya started to do much better than her peers.

“It shows that these imperialist countries can’t afford to accept the talent that Africa as a continent has,” the South African Football Players Union said in a message of congratulation to Semenya.

Politicians stepped in too.

“The ANC YL condemns with contempt those who are questioning her gender,” said the ever vocal Youth League of the Ruling African National Congress.

Some even drew parallels between Semenya and an unpleasant episode from the colonial era - Sarah Baartman, a South African woman, was taken from her rural homeland in 1810 and paraded to the world as a freak because of her unusual physical features. Her remains were finally brought back to South Africa in 2002 and laid to rest.

Whatever the results of the officials’ tests on Semenya - and the scientific procedures could take months – most South Africans are convinced that she is not a cheat but a great athlete who will return to a huge welcome.

Poor South Africans have called upon newly elected president Jacob Zuma to keep his election promises on service delivery. The past week has seen a number of protests flaring up across South Africa against what protesters called poor service delivery.

In one township in the country’s Mpumalanga province residents barricaded the entire township, burning tyres, throwing stones at policemen and calling for the head of the local mayor, whom they described as “good for nothing”. “There is no development. You can see for yourself,” one resident told journalists. He spoke of alleged neglect and apparent self enrichment from local government officials.

Locals also complained about being “overlooked” for jobs in the local municipalities in favour of people from outside.

Demonstrations lasted nearly the whole day on Wednesday 22nd July. Later in the afternoon the local municipal council came to address the crowds who-for-a-while refused to listen to their elected officials. One thing they wanted clarified was whether their brothers and sisters- arrested during the last two days of protests would be released before they could listen to whatever the town council’s meeting had concluded. Ninety-nine residents had been taken into police custody.

Siyathemba Township is but one example of this recent surge in protests against perceived lack of service delivery. The challenges of getting access to water and sanitation facilities, health care, employment, and electricity fifteen years into democratic South Africa are being brought up, albeit via the protests.

The residents in Siyathemba said they want Zuma to act on non-performing government officials. Do these protests suggest that poor South Africans are exercising their democratic right by speaking out on non performing government officials? Does the South African government simply view these protestors as unruly and unemployed youths who are out to damage the reputation of the country and Zuma? Or does national government pressure  local and provincial governments to deliver on their elections mandate?

President Barack Obama’s choice of Ghana for his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa since taking office has stirred debate in his father’s homeland Kenya.

Some Kenyans believe Obama ought to have come “home” first. Others, especially among critics of President Mwai Kibaki’s government, say he has deliberately shunned the country to show U.S. disapproval of rampant corruption and nepotism in political circles here.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who comes from the Luo ethnic group like Obama’s father, said it was wrong to read too much into Obama’s itinerary, given that neither was he visiting other influential nations in the region like South Africa and Nigeria.

“Ghana is symbolic. It was the first African country to gain independence from Britain in 1957. Ghana is very advanced in its transition to democratic form of governance. So it is perfectly logical,” he told Reuters.

“If Obama were to come to Kenya as the first country in Africa, it would send some very wrong signals that he is coming here merely because of some organic relationship that he has with this country. So in fact it is good.”

Obama has been to Kenya several times, most recently as a senator in mid-2006. In a speech then, he took a strong line against corruption, which has plagued East Africa’s largest economy for decades. “If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and promote their common welfare - then all else is lost. That is why the struggle of corruption is one of the great struggles of our time,” he said.

That speech drew a sharp response from the government. Spokesman Alfred Mutua called Obama a young man who was “very poorly informed” and chided him for “lecturing” Kenyans. When Obama took power, however, the Kibaki government was so happy it announced a national holiday in his honour. The U.S. leader is wildly popular among all sectors of Kenyan society.

So should Obama have included Kenya on his Africa tour? Is he snubbing his ancestral homeland?

So, the Confederations Cup is over and much of the pessimistic handringing beforehand proved unfounded.

Despite some real logistical problems, the general verdict seems to be that the tournament was a success with enthusiastic and colourful crowds and some classy and unpredictable football, not least the United States' shock semi-final defeat of Spain and a thrilling final where Brazil went 2-0 down to the Americans before storming back to win 3-2 and ensure the football world was not thrown off its axis.

Crucially, South Africa's own team, Bafana Bafana, did a lot better than many of their own fans had expected. The side suffered a lot of bad press from their terrible pre-competition form -- they did not even qualify for next year's African Nations Cup finals -- and Brazilian coach Joel Santana had been treated with scepticism by football writers and fans alike. Even Danny Jordaan, chief executive of the organising committee for next year's World Cup, expressed concern over their form.

After a slow start, however, South Africa turned in a creditable, if not outstanding performance. They reached the semi-final and held eventual champions Brazil until the 88th minute when they went down to a scorching free kick by Daniel Alves. And in the third place final they pushed European champions Spain into extra time before finally losing 3-2, again to a freekick.

They badly need more strike power and it looks like Santana must make peace with English-based striker Benni McCarthy who was dropped from the team for his apparent lack of commitment. But their performance gave grounds for some optimism.

Bafana Bafana's Confederations Cup performance was key to the 2010 World Cup because it will encourage local fan participation -- a constant worry for the organisers, who expressed concern before this tournament about lack of home enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, there are continuing worries that even the cheapest World Cup tickets are still too expensive for working class South Africans and that they will be unwilling to pay in advance for entrance in a year's time, something which goes directly against the entrenched local custom of buying tickets on match days.

World Cup matches attended predominantly by foreign fans and restrained, middle class South Africans would be a huge disappointment for the first World Cup held in Africa, where the unique local atmosphere was a major selling point.

That isn't the only worry in considering what the Confederations Cup tells us about the likely success of next year's much bigger global competition.

FIFA boss Sepp Blatter gave organisers 7.5 points out of 10 for the Confederations Cup but World Cup veterans said this was nothing to be complacent about, given his likely tendency to talk up the tournament. Even Blatter said South Africa had to do "a little bit more" and FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke was more direct, acknowledging problems with transport, security and accommodation capacity, which is still significantly below what will be required next year.

Security is a particularly sensitive issue, given South Africa's frightening reputation for violent crime, so it was unfortunate that the Confederations Cup saw alleged thefts from both Egyptian and Brazilian teams, although some of the circumstances remain mirky.

More serious were security lapses in access to stadiums and other areas. Such failures must be cleared up in the time that remains if fans are to follow their teams without constantly looking over their shoulders.

So the Confederations Cup provided both encouragement and warnings. Okay so far, but much more to be done. The next 12 months may be both nerve racking and frenetic for the organisers but we are all still hoping for a reasonably trouble-free football extravaganza with the special atmosphere that only Africa can give it--including those pesky vuvuzela trumpets...

PHOTO: A South African fan at the June 28 Confederations Cup final REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

The debate around the vuvuzela was always going to generate big noise but for some South African commentators it has become almost a neo-colonial conflict.

The noisy trumpet, which dominates the sound waves around the stadiums during the Confederations Cup, has got a lot of people covering their ears.

Complaints from TV viewers across Europe have been vociferous enough for the future of the plastic pest to become the major item on the agenda at the series of press conferences FIFA president Sepp Blatter has held during the tournament in South Africa.

Blatter has said it will stay — he wants to celebrate local custom and is inviting the rest of the world to do so too.

FIFA’s television arm, HBS, are more cautious but say privately, at the end of the day what Blatter says goes.

The European TV stations, who pay a lot of the money that funds FIFA, Blatter and the World Cup, could have the vuvuzela banned if they bleated enough. But most of the noise, so far, has come from enraged South Africa columnists, who have rounded on the poor Dutch journalist who first sought Blatter’s response to complaints from European television viewers.

In Africa, there is a sensitivity to being told what to do from outside and a pride in seeking to create a unique World Cup in 2010. Some of the stuff written though has been a little churlish. See here, here and here for a flavour.

At the end the day, it is the big TV money that talks. If the world’s broadcasters feel the cacophony of vuvuzelas detracts from the viewing pleasure of their public, FIFA will be forced to back down and ban the trumpets from the 2010 World Cup stadiums.

It won’t have anything to do with any ‘ism, just cold hard cash.

For all their scepticism about South Africa’s potential to host the World Cup, the build-up to the test event, the Confederations Cup, has so far gone without any major hitches.

It is a dream scenario for the home nation and FIFA, still trying to temper the doubters and persuade the world all will be ready by 2010, has added to the chorus of congratulations.

Sepp Blatter devoted a good deal of his traditional pre-tournament news conference on Friday to pouring scorn on the doubters.

Admittedly, there is much last minute activity and privately officials have spoken of the frustration of a society where urgency is not always a priority.

But in a country desperate to prove it can put on an event of the magnitude of the World Cup, South Africa is ahead in the PR race.

The only setback, ironically, has been the weather. It might be winter but on the Highveld, where the four venues for the Confederation Cup are situated, the cold season is normally mildly pleasant.

The air is brisk and after hours it gets cold but the days are usually filled with sunshine. Except for this week. Teams arrived to frigid conditions and unseasonal rain and spent the first days bemused by the weather.

The Italians, in particular, made much of the wet. Their friendly win against New Zealand in Pretoria on Wednesday was played in a constant downpour and the non-playing staff and spectators were bundled up as if on an Artic expedition.

The television pictures beamed back to Italy would certainly have put off a few potential tourists, who had planned to come out for the 2010 tournament.

But on the eve of kick off of the first game, South Africa v Iraq on Sunday, the sunshine has come out. Now the pressure is back on the organisers.

PHOTO: South Africa's President Jacob Zuma reacts after being given a soccer jersey by the national soccer team before their training session at Orlando stadium in Soweto June 13, 2009. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

We are now less than a week away from the start of the Confederations Cup and the first true test of South Africa's preparedness to host the 2010 World Cup.

It's hard for a lot of people to take the Confederations Cup seriously, although in Germany four years ago it did develop into a summer festival and in the end proved a tasty appetiser before the main meal 12 months later.

The field for South Africa is somewhat lob-sided: Brazil, Italy and the all-conquering Spanish are the strong favourites with the United States, Egypt and South Africa perhaps having the potential to create an upset. Iraq and New Zealand should pose few problems for the big teams.

Most importantly, though, this is a test of the organisational ability of the World Cup hosts, whose preparations for 2010 have been clouded by uncertainty.

That has been partly because of international scepticism over the ability of an African country to organise an event of the magnitude of the World Cup and partly because South Africa have failed dismally to spin the positives of their bid.

But the evidence of potential is now beginning to emerge from beneath the mountains of bricks and dramatic skyline of cranes.

The stadiums are all scheduled to be completed ahead of time and the country's infrastructure is already looking sleeker and smarter, although new road works and airport upgrades continue at pace.

Ultimately, though, it will be the people who make or break the event.

There is an underlying spirit of hospitality to South Africans but it is also a country with a dangerous crime rate that makes many visitors nervous. This month presents the chance for a good deal of positive marketing.

Whether South Africa snatches up the opportunity remains to be seen.

PHOTO: A fan smiles during South Africa's friendly against Poland at Orlando stadium in Soweto June 6, 2009, ahead of the Confederations Cup. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

South Africa’s Brazilian coach Joel Santana has broken into English at news conferences on just a handful of occasions.

It's mostly after rare wins for the national side when the local media are in good humour and Santana seeks to charm them with his piecemeal vocabulary. Few notes are taken amid the mirth.

So it was after Saturday’s win over Poland in Soweto – a rare triumph for Bafana Bafana against European opposition which is a confidence booster for a side in desperate need of a lift.

As upcoming World Cup hosts, much is being made of the need for the home country to field a competent and competitive side at the 2010 tournament.

Santana has been tasked with achieving that goal but his first 12 months in charge has been mired in mediocrity.

A triumph over a holidaying Polish team, shorn of many of their first choice players, is in reality no indictor of whether Santana’s work will take the team to a better level.

South Africa now face the Confederations Cup, where Iraq and New Zealand are their first two opponents.

But success against this pair will also make us no wiser as to their true potential. But it may mean being subjected to a few more news conferences in English from Santana.

He has taken to heart recent critical comparisons with the way Fabio Capello has made an obvious effort at improving his English fluency since starting his tenure with England.

Capello is a veritable Stephen Fry in comparison with Santana, but the hacks will be happy if Santana keep trying because it means the team is winning.

PHOTO: South Africa soccer coach Joel Santana looks on during a news conference in Johannesburg June 4, 2009. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

South African President Jacob Zuma has a tough balancing act to perform as he begins his term in office.

 On the one hand, Zuma is anxious to assure investors that there will be continuity in the economic policies that have secured the country’s status as the regional powerhouse.

On the other, he has to address the increasingly vocal demands of his allies in the labour movement, whose support propelled him first to the leadership of the ruling ANC and then to the country’s top government job after April 22 elections.

But what the unions want - increased social spending to cushion their members against the ravages to the global recession that has now also landed in South Africa - would mean veering away from the prudent fiscal stance that has ironically cushioned the country from the worst of the world crisis.

Investors are also keen to see whether Zuma bows to pressure not to renew the contract of central bank Governor Tito Mboweni, loved by financial markets but vilified by unions that say a pre-occupation with inflation targeting has seen the Reserve Bank maintain a tight monetary policy at the expense of economic growth, impoverishing millions.

Can Zuma please one side without alienating the other? And if it comes down to choice, will the President opt to sacrifice his alliance with the Left to maintain South Africa’s international standing? How essential is union support for his success as President and can the ANC stay in power without it?

Recent events in South Africa have sent some conflicting signals to investors about sovereign risks. On the one hand there was some regulatory flip-flopping over the Vodacom listing given objections from the union organisation COSATU, which raised questions about the influence of unions in Jacob Zuma’s administration. On the other hand the sovereign issuing some $1.5 billion was highly successful and oversubscribed.

With Zuma recently elected on a platform of change for his domestic audience and continuation of old policies when speaking to investors, there is a raft of new ministers and new ministries and quite a bit of policy uncertainty. No foreign investor will deny South Africa’s need to address serious social problems of inequality, housing, jobs and education through a more developmental state agenda.

However investors I speak to simply want to see that this is not at the expense of the productive sectors of the economy. This agenda will naturally involve the ANC’s allies: COSATU and SACP (communist party).  As such, the process of governing will be a noisy affair for investors. I put the Vodacom incident down to such noise.

However I believe the new Zuma administration will find itself heavily constrained by the need to raise funds for its agenda and so keep investors onside as the government’s borrowing requirement balloons. Add state owned enterprises engaging in very necessary investment, and a current account deficit and you arrive at a funding requirement north of  500 billion rand for the next two years.

This will act as a strong rationalising influence though a backup overdraft in the form of an IMF flexible credit lending facility would be a benefit.  It also should not be forgotten that there is still a strong business influence in the cabinet and the ANC from the likes of Cyril Ramaphosa and Tokyo Sexwale.  Most investors buy the case of policy not shifting sharply to the left, though a lot of questions have been planted in the minds of investors.

Keeping the different factions in his cabinet in line will be key for Zuma’s success, especially with two new hurdles looming: the Bharti/MTN and the Xstrata/Anglo American mergers. Both are sensitive and likely to be jumped on by unions.  The inflation-targeting debate is also being reopened locally — a topic foreign investors love to discuss.

It is now up to Zuma and his team to deliver on prudent macro-policy as well as his developmental state priorities in order to sustain the current goodwill from investors.  It is still early days for his administration. We hope not to be disappointed — for South Africa’s sake as much as anyone elses.

Peter Attard Montalto is emerging market economist at Nomura International.