In the recent past, a black player, first left-arm spinner Omar Henry and then pacer Makhaya Nitini, has been included in the team. In the first Test of this series, however, the team was all white; and the black majority, with support from the ANC, is calling for consistent representation - and not one player, but two or three.
That call, however, is being protested by those, mostly whites, who believes that the team, like all South African teams, should be selected on merit regardless and for many reasons, that appears the road to travel.
Apart from the fact that for sportsmen, there is a greater satisfaction when one is selected on merit, and apart from the disservice which would be done to a player who is sacrificed because of tokenism, South Africa should be represented by its best players. Anything else would make a mockery of competitive sport - including Test cricket.
In its bid to right the wrongs of apartheid, however, South Africa has taken affirmative action to ensure that blacks, coloured, Indians and other disenfranchised groups over the years are given equal opportunity in every aspects of the society, and the question those calling for guaranteed non-white representation on the cricket team are asking is why should sport not be part of that action in building the new South Africa.
``Sport cannot be excluded from our drive for a new South Africa,'' argues Sports Minister Steve Tshwete who supports those who believe that although winning is good for South Africa's image, losing a cricket match, or a series, would not affect life in South Africa.
The black consensus is that South Africa has to build today for a better tomorrow, like anything else in life, sacrifices have to be made, and sport should be no exception.
Support for this view has come, surprisingly to some, from the United Cricket Board of South Africa through its powerful and influential managing director Dr. Ali Bacher, and although selection committee Peter Pollack believes his responsibility to South Africa cricket is to select the best team, it seems almost certain that one or two non whites will be in action in Port Elizabeth on Thursday.
According to Bacher, it was inexcusable that a non-white was not included in the team for the first Test, and he has been attempting to convince the selectors - two whites, one black and one coloured that there should be one or two in the team for the second Test.
``We have to play them,'' said Bacher during the first Test. ``We cannot get away from it. If we really want a new South Africa, we have to do it.''
What about the white player or players who would be in the team on merit but who would then be left out?
According to the blacks, that is their problem - they should remember the days when blacks were not even given an opportunity? According to the whites who support the move, that is not important - they simply have to understand that it is their contribution to the new South Africa.
If a new South Africa depends on an integrated cricket team, and with rugby, whose take-the-field 15 is all white, also under the microscope, should it not also depend on the racial mix of the soccer team which, sometimes, parades one or two whites?
That is the question the whites are asking.
The answer is simple: while whites hardly play soccer, blacks have been playing cricket and rugby for a long time, the numbers are growing, and they are getting better and better.
On top of that, as the blacks are quick to remind, the whites were never oppressed and disenfranchised. The blacks now want what was denied them over the years, and they are not prepared to wait - merit or not, win or lose.