Zimbabwe, the ICC and politics

As we all know, cricket in Zimbabwe is currently under siege from two entirely different fronts. Firstly, it is being attacked on the basis of human right breaches in that country. Secondly, it is argued that the results on the field are so poor that Zimbabwe should not be allowed to play international cricket. I think, to begin with, we should look at these two arguments seperately.

In relation to human rights abuses it is clear that the ICC is going to continue to refuse to act. This morning it reiterated that it "does not make decisions on political grounds".

In relation to the standard of cricket in Zimababwe I think John Wright has added a very sensible perspective to the debate. I think everyone acknowledges that Zimbabwe currently has a very poor side. But we should recall that they beat New Zealand in a one-day series as recently as five years ago. We should also keep in mind that most countries have gone through bad spells before - none more so than New Zealand. As Wright points out, the fact that Zimbabwe is currently a poor side is not the issue. The issue is whether they have the infrastructure, resources and support to improve. At this stage that looks very unlikely.

The infrastructure of cricket in Zimbabwe is an issue for a number of reasons. First there is the issue of the players' revolt. While fault can be found on most sides for this revolt, the fact that it was so badly handled is entirely the responsibility of management. The role of management is to guide, lead and support and it clearly failed on those counts.

The second reason why the infrastructure is an issue is the relationship between the board and the clubs it apparently represents. The Zimbabwe clubs revolted against the board in December 2004, an act which led to the suspension of first-class cricket. Again this is a management issue and comes back to a failure of the board.

The third issue in relation to infrastructure is the fact that there is little interest left in the game. This can be partially attributed to decline of the side and the internal revolts, but can also be attributed to the game's close association with Robert Mugabe. Traditionally cricket in Zimbabwe was a pursuit of the land-owning middle-class, the natural enemies of Marxism and therefore of Robert Mugabe. Because of this enmity, it is in Mugabe's interest that cricket in Zimbabwe continue as it gives an whiff of normality to a middle-class which is actually under attack. Added to this is the fact that Robert Mugabe is an avid fan and that he is the patron of the game in that country. All of this means that to watch or play cricket in Zimbabwe is to indicate a level of support for Robert Mugabe. Predictably this has meant that the traditional support base has eroded. Few of Mugabe's supporters seem to show much inclination to fill the gap - the poor standard of the national side being an obvious stumbling block to finding a new audience.

We have already seen that there are two problems facing cricket in Zimbabwe and one of them is directly attributable to the human rights abuses committed by Robert Mugabe and his colleagues. The second problem is the infrastructure of cricket in Zimbabwe and the problems associated with this infrastructure can all be connected to either the management of Zimbabwe Cricket or the political situation. Zimbabwe Cricket is headed by Peter Chingoka, a friend of Robert Mugabe and a man appointed at his request. Management and the political situation are therefore one and the same issue.

The ICC does not accept that human rights abuse in Zimbabwe is a reason for it to take any action. But the ICC does have a responsibility for ensuring that Zimbabwe has the infrastructure, support and resources to support a test-class national side. And for as long as Zimbabwe Cricket continues to be run by Robert Mugabe and Peter Chingoka, the ICC will fail to meet those responsibilities. The ICC might well state that it "does not make decisions on political grounds", ultimately it will have to.