a preliminary round in the ICC Champions Trophy, has sparked the usual round of protests.
These quite rightly condemn the International Cricket Council (ICC) and its member nations for ignoring the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and the Government’s virtual takeover of Zimbabwe Cricket. Comparisons are made with the very successful moves to isolate South African cricket in the 1970s and 1980s, the rallying cry then of “no normal sport in an abnormal society” being applied to the Zimbabwe situation of to-day.
Although this line of thought is morally correct, it does ignore certain realities which make the Zimbabwean situation completely different to the one that existed in apartheid-ruled South Africa.
The main difference is that the ICC is committed to a future tours programme that carries severe financial penalties if test-playing nations seek to avoid playing Zimbabwe on any grounds other than safety concerns. This was not the case 30 years ago as different countries organised tours on an ad hoc basis.
The ICC has said consistently that it does not get involved in the internal affairs of its members, a point reiterated again by Malcolm Speed (ICC Chief Executive Officer) and Percy Sonn (the current ICC President) during their recent visit to Zimbabwe.
The critics of the ICC have attacked the organisation for this viewpoint. However, it is wishful thinking to expect the ICC to do anything about the situation even though Zimbabwe Cricket has rushed through a change of Constitution and invited the Zanu (PF) government to have a major say in appointing the board Directors. Such goings on are common in countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka and as the ICC has never interfered there, there is no prospect of them getting involved in the Zimbabwean situation not matter how shrill the demands are.
Finally, a Zimbabwe government spokesman made it clear several months ago, that “restructuring” of Zimbabwe Cricket would be done regardless of the reaction of other counties or organisations.
So, where to now for Zimbabwe cricket? The controversial restructuring process is complete and previous board members have been moved aside, their pleas to the ICC to intervene on their behalf now presumably exhausted. Perhaps the most interesting developments have taken place on the field of play where the young and inexperienced Zimbabwe team completed a 3-2 series win over Bangladesh. This created euphoria amongst supporters and a belief that even though more than 30 good players have been lost over the last 3 years, there is still much potential in those who remain.
Admittedly, this feel good factor is likely to be swept away when the side faces stronger opposition, but a series win over an improving Bangladesh side cannot be ignored. It would suggest that the young team does have the potential to improve as long as it can continue to have international exposure even if the return to test cricket is delayed.
In spite of all the politics that have bedevilled Zimbabwean Cricket in recent times, it is important that the game continues and if that means working with the new dispensation, no matter how unpalatable to some, then so be it.
There will come a time when the Zanu (PF) leviathan is no more and its fellow travellers on the cricket gravy train will disappear, so that genuine cricket-loving Zimbabweans can take the game to new heights from a position of growing strength. This is surely preferable to a situation of starting from scratch, which would be the case if those pressing for Zimbabwe’s total isolation had their way. It is good to see the continuing involvement of competent and skilled Zimbabwean coaches such as Kevin Curran and Andy Pycroft with the senior side and Dillip Chouhan and Walter Chawaguta with the Under 19 side who so impressively beat England at the Under 19 world cup in February 2006.
This is not to state that disapproval of the current state of affairs should fall away, but it must not be at the expense of the development of Zimbabwean cricket. It is to be hoped that individual cricketers will continue to stand up for what they believe are important principles as Andy Flower and Henry Olonga did during the 2003 world cup and Tatenda Taibu more recently.
Non-Zimbabwean cricketers such as Australian Stuart McGill and England’s Andrew Flintoff also made a stand when their countries were due to tour Zimbabwe and the New Zealand government refused to grant the Zimbabwe team visas.
These are the kinds of headline-attracting actions that will keep the world’s attention on Zimbabwe, while cricket tries to keep its head above water. It is important that people with a genuine love for the game keep the flag flying until the day when real change will once again see Zimbabwe regain its position as the jewel of Africa in all fields, not just cricket ones.