|
Back to Index
To
boycott, or not to boycott?
John
Traicos and Goolam Rajah, Mail & Guardian, (SA)
July 04, 2008
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-07-04-to-boycott-or-not
Anti:
Suspending Zimbabwe will have little impact
John Traicos: Former South Africa and Zimbabwe
Test cricketer: Suspending
Zimbabwe from international cricket will have little or no political
impact because there are greater issues at stake -- Robert Mugabe
may like cricket but power and position probably matter most.
It is unrealistic to
expect sanctions to effect political change by putting pressure
on those in power if a sporting body is controlled by politicians
and has to adhere to the laws of the country, regardless of whether
or not it agrees with them. In any case, anyone upset by a sporting
boycott can do nothing about it since the right to vote has no relevance
in Zimbabwe.
In fact, most sports
reflect high standards of sportsmanship resulting in good lines
of communication that can often be beneficial in overcoming political
and religious barriers. In that respect it is very unfair to punish
individual Zimbabwe cricketers or Zimbabwe Cricket for government
policies, especially when you cannot confirm that they voted for
the political party you are trying to punish.
Sport should be kept
separate from politics as far as possible. While sport has a strong
national and representative element -- it is usually every top sportsman's
ambition to represent his country -- it is also individual and personal.
It would be very difficult
to achieve an effective ban across all sports but it would be wrong
to suspend Zimbabwe cricket when, for example, the country's athletes
can compete at the Olympics this summer. History also tells us that
boycotts at the Olympics have had minimal impact. It is the innocent,
hard-working sportsmen who suffer, not the politicians.
People highlight the
example of South Africa and how apartheid ended because of sanctions.
Having experienced the reality when I couldn't play for South Africa
in the 1970s I believe that while sporting sanctions were not liked
by South Africans in the Seventies and Eighties (in fact sport survived
through rebel tours), there were greater influences in effecting
change.
These were economic and
cultural isolation, the growing power of revolutionary elements
in the Eighties and the increasing violence in the country. There
was also a realisation by leading whites by 1990 that South Africa
(like Rhodesia in the Seventies) was fighting a war it could not
win.
So, how do you solve
the problem? The political situation can be changed peacefully through
free and fair elections or aggressively through external economic
and military pressure. Neither of these options seems likely in
the short term. Instead a negotiated settlement might be possible
if the arrangement gives Mugabe, his military leaders and the Movement
for Democratic Change a role in a peaceful structure that can in
due course provide a transition to normality.
Pro:
South Africa is proof that sports boycotts have an effect
Goolam Rajah: General manager of the South Africa
cricket team: Frankly,
I think it is crazy for anyone to say there is no place for sporting
boycotts, or that they are ineffectual. South Africa is living,
breathing proof that they can have a profound and dramatic effect
for the better.
Sportsmen who claim their
"innocence" from the real world are deluding themselves.
When cricketers came to South Africa on the Mike Gatting-led rebel
tour in 1990, they claimed they were here just to play cricket and
knew nothing of politics. Sorry -- their mere presence meant they
were endorsing the apartheid regime and that was the view of 90%
of the population.
One has to be able to
look at the big picture and there is always a price to pay for attaining
what is "right".
The vast majority of
white cricketers who couldn't play against the best teams in the
world during our 21-year period of isolation were innocent, but
that was a very small price to pay for the emancipation of 40-million
people.
The point about sporting
boycotts is that they draw the world's attention to what is happening
within the borders of despot countries.
Eddie Barlow started
the sporting campaign against apartheid back in the early 1980s
when he led his team off the field in the middle of a Currie Cup
game at the Wanderers and told the press: "So much, but no
more."
The Gatting-led tour,
I believe, inadvertently played a very significant role in ending
apartheid because the government of the day hated the worldwide
attention and embarrassment it created.
Admittedly, a sporting
boycott of Zimbabwe isn't going to mean much to Robert Mugabe personally,
but any country that maintains normal sporting ties with Zimbabwe
is, in effect, endorsing his regime. Once that message is made clear,
prime ministers, presidents and their Cabinet ministers will be
less inclined to turn a blind eye. Sport is both a window into a
country and a spotlight on it. I have seen and felt the effects
of a sports boycott working.
I have some wonderful
friends in Zimbabwe, in Zimbabwe Cricket for that matter; do you
think I want to put them out of work, or deny them the pleasure
that cricket brings? Of course I don't. But they would rather have
democracy and a functioning economy than play the game while all
around them is morally and financial bankrupt. As we used to say
in South Africa: "No normal sport in an abnormal society."
That can and should be applied to any country.
*Rajah spent
much of his life living under apartheid. His view is personal and
not that of the national team or Cricket South Africa.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
