BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Browse: Cricket

169 comments

user rating: 2 star

Is it right to ban Zimbabwe?

comment on the article

Can issues of governance be settled by banning their cricket players? I think not. By this yardstick, several Test teams can be banned.

Thoughts?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by ADSM (U9519094)

posted Jun 26, 2008

I am not criticising the principles behind the land repossession policy (although it was incredibly badly handled). I would also point out that the Bretton Woods system has not been running for the past 25 years.

The Mugabe regime is the subject of UN-approved sanctions due to its fondness for rape, murder and mutilation of political opponents. These, however, are not the real reasons for its economic decline. The Mugabe regime is incapable of managing a developing economy and the current problems are the result of endemic corruption, appallingly wasteful and mismanaged agricultural practice, and a lack of infrastructure which Mugabe has done nothing to address.

You state that you are'not here to make excuses for failed policy by the GoZ' but that is exactly what you are doing. You are proffering the same excuses that Mugabe trots out- blaming the West and Britain for his own incompetence and power crazed madness.
I notice you do not condemn his tactics of murder and political thuggery to retain power.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 26, 2008

Wrong reason. Zim should be out of international cricket because their team is too weak. I would have played South Africa in the apartheid years, I was happy for us to take on Soviet athletes (how many people were consistent about those two issues?), and I would play Zimbabwe if they weren't just fodder for other players to improve their averages in boring one-sided Tests. It was all much easier when individual players were free to tell the selectors when they were and were not available.

The weakness of the Zimbabwe team is the fault of Mugabe's regime, of course, but it is because of that weakness that they should be ejected.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by BoSka*z (U9719667)

posted Jun 26, 2008

Spinoza

All I am doing is giving you the ''other side'' of the coin, you know the side nobody seems or is interested in talking about. As for the thuggery and violence, can I remind you that Britain has had 1000 years to develop and perfect its current institutional democracy. Zimbabwe is only 28 years old and without a democratic constitutional foundation. We have functioned on the relic of a flawed and inadequate constitution inherited from the Smith era.

Template democracy - in the sense that you know it cannot and should not be imposed on Zimbabwe without taking cognisance of the socio-cultural complexities of African society. It is this oversimplification of conditions on the ground by the west that frustrates a lot of us. This insistence on paternalistic top-down solutions for problems a lot of westerners cannot begin and are unwilling to comprehend rankles. I say this respectfully of course.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by ADSM (U9519094)

posted Jun 26, 2008

Fair enough Boskaz, but I remind you that the democratic decision to vote out Mugabe was taken by the people of Zimbabwe, and is not the result of 'top down' Western interference. It is the Zimbabwean people whom Mugabe is abusing. I aree that Britain's imperial past deprives it of the moral high ground, but its boycott of Mugabe's regime is part of a concerted international effort to put pressure on Mugabe and should not be viewed in isolation. It would certainly be preferable for regional powers such as South Africa to take the lead in pressurizing Mugabe. However so far ths has been slow in coming

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 27, 2008

england are cowards,they are pushing for this ban so that they dont loose hosting 20/20 2009. if they ban zim from playing 1day internationals that means they have to ban them from the 20/20 world cup. but this will mean england will loose hosting it and tehy dont want that.so they cowardly trying to persuade some other countries to back them. good for india i hope they dont dont back them.

its such a shame really coz compromises can be reached but england dont want this, they want a full ban so thier backsides are covered.

ok zim can be banned from hosting any country no one would be affected, no one would have to worry about security. they can still be able to visit those countries who want them to continue playing.

why not ask the OLYMPIC commity to ban ZIM going to CHINA,then you would have won.

i wonder whether you are going to manage to persuade the world to ban zimbabwe paticipating in 2012 olympics coz it looks like that idiot MUGABE will be staying for a long time, well if he doesnt die.

can you imagine if zimbabwe qualify for 2010 world cup and they get drawn england. does this mean they will chicken out palying them in SA.

it doesnt surprise me mr speed meets up with MALI and the next thing SA drops association with ZIM.

and he will be next president so that means ZIM cricket is definelty over when he takes over.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 28, 2008

personaly i think that zimbabwe should be banned from most sporting and for that matter any other, events until such time as the situation over there is sorted out.
do i think that doing this will make a significant difference in what is happening there? probably not. but it should be done anyway. any and all action and criticism of these people is another straw that could help break their camels back.
bottom line is that a relatively small gesture (compared to the larger scheme of things) such as that proposed probably wont make any difference to the corrupt politicians and security chiefs running zimbabwe. by banning zimbabwe and cutting off forex links available through participation in sporting events only a few corrupt sports officials are likely to be affected. as for the rest they are so busy ruining the country for their own benefit that they are unlikely to pay much attention.
they know the world is watching, and they know that little is likely to be done to actualy physicaly stop them. how will words and a bad international reputation stop them when there are plenty of foreign companies willing to turn a blind eye in exchange for the financial benefits available from dealing with such regimes?
it is up to the world as a whole to make a statement in every possible way that such behaviour will not be tolerated. unless of course for whatever reasons such behaviour will be tolerated, in which case little or no action will be taken as is the current situation.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2008

No. Cricket with Zimbabwe should not be banned. I hope BCCI does the right thing!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2008

Why should the ICC give mony to ZC only for it to go elsewhere, probably into Mugabe's wallet.

ZC cricket is now in such a poor state and with limited availability of scorecards and poor teams and officials, it was always likely that the ICC would no longer consider ZC to be playing first class cricket, but now that is irrelevant.


add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2008

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve heads a list of Tory MPs with sizeable shareholdings in companies accused of propping up Robert Mugabe's regime, The Independent on Sunday can reveal today.

i think the british GOV need to look closer at home. these people are the ones that need to be banned not the cricketers.

i think people around the world need to protest against mugabe where ever he goes. waiters, airport staff, embassies everyone who comes close to him should boycott serving him.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 19.05%
    4 votes
  • 4 4.76%
    1 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 76.19%
    16 votes

average rating:
1.90 from 21 votes