Not out

In my first post I supported Desmond Tutu’s call for a cricket boycott of Zimbabwe, which has now begun. Obviously, I was very pleased that it was Cricket SA which (finally) took the first step. English cricket followed. Many governments have now explicitly criticised Mugabe. None of this may immediately remove him from power, but all are useful steps towards building an international consensus on the issue.

Next on the cricket front is the ICC meeting. Very good arguments for strong ICC action have come from writers in SA, the UK and India. I recommend especially Sambit Bal’s Cricinfo editorial and Andy Bull in the UK Guardian. But both still seem uneasy about ‘bringing politics into sport’. To repeat myself, sport is part of society, and society is shot through with politics. The ICC is part of international relations and this is also inherently political. National political parties and their competition have no place in sport, but sport cannot be quarantined from ‘politics’ in its wider sense of the exercise of power, at either domestic or international levels.

What about the ICC? Prima facie, Zimbabwe Cricket is financially and organisationally bankrupt, since every other public organisation in that country appears to be. The onus should be on ZC to demonstrate its viability, that its institutional capability (not simply its playing ability) still warrants a place at the top table. Does it have income other than the ICC’s handout? Can it mount adequate domestic competitions including at junior levels and home and away tours for the national team as well as lower level? These and similar questions need answers.

If ZC cannot answer satisfactorily, the ICC should act as any responsible regulator would and declare it bankrupt, that is, suspend its membership and institute a process to restore its health. The ICC should appoint a task team to develop a plan – backed by funds – to be implemented once Mugabe no longer has absolute power and the country begins to stabilize.

Cricket’s recovery in Zimbabwe will require externally supervised elections for a new national body. As I have argued, national sports authorities provide public goods and need to be accountable. To be effective, they must be credibly constituted in the eyes of ‘the public’. In 1991, the SA Cricket Union had to close and a new body, the United Cricket Board, established. Whether or not Peter Chingoka or other ZC officials are linked with Mugabe’s reign of destruction, the schisms in Zimbabwean society mean cricket will need a new, properly representative governing body.

These steps are way too far for the ICC at present (though by doing so it would at the same time enhance its own governance). Media reports suggest the BCCI will support the status quo, unless the Indian government forces it to do otherwise. If BCCI’s position is predicated on Zimbabwe’s ICC vote, it is short-sighted. Even the façade of Zimbabwe cricket will crumble soon, forcing India to cut them loose.

The Indian Government will not push BCCI: it won’t jeopardise its major ongoing initiative to build closer economic ties with African countries for the sake of Zimbabwe or cricket.

But I don’t expect that Mugabe will relinquish his hold on power anytime soon – just last week he said only God will remove him - so there will be further opportunity and need to press the ICC to intervene. I hope I’m proved wrong.