Mourning Zimbabwe: the black armband protest

Sport is not what it used to be. It still excites and incites the passion of the everyday fan, but it no longer represents the Corinthian spirit. Amateurism died a long time ago. And whilst athletes are becoming quicker, stronger and faster, they are also becoming far wealthier. Athletes have short careers and are more than entitled to make their money in this time; but the role of the corporation is changing the way athletes behave.

Long gone are the 1970s when athletes were given an extra few pounds to wear a pair of Adidas trainers. Athletes are now the stars and ambassadors for multinationals brands. What they do and how they do it makes us want to be like them, and of course, more importantly, what they wear only helps them further. However, the burden of corporate sponsorship does not allow for controversy. Multinationals are like any other company and do not like reputational issues. Nike no longer wants to be associated with Lance Armstrong or Oscar Pistorious; and for obvious reasons. Football club boardrooms seat directors of communications. Huge marketing and PR arms are in place to ensure nothing taints the brand. To some extent, boring is good.

Politics is reflected in this. At his peak in the early 1990s, Michael Jordan was seen to be a model for all Democrat voters. Yet, the canny Chicago Bulls guard simply replied to any questions about politics that “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Political statements, for the sake of corporate sponsorship, are now rarer and to some extent, not worth the trouble.

The most famous political statement of all was the ‘black power’ salute of Mexico 1968. In front of a global audience, Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave a fisted salute whilst accepting their Olympic medals. The protest was not a black power as initially perceived, but an attempt to highlight the struggle for equality for black Americans. Symbolic for sport both now and in 1968, the salute did nothing further than tarnish the two athletes’ careers from that day onward.

It is hard to believe, but it is now ten years ago, since the 2003 Cricket World Cup, where two brave Zimbabwean cricketers made a political gesture that would change their lives forever. Captain Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, the country’s first black international, both wore black armbands during the opening game of the competition to highlight what they saw as “mourning the death of democracy in Zimbabwe”.

Both men released a prepared press statement ahead of the side's first match.

The gesture appears small, but its symbolism was enormous. Robert Mugabe, the man who had led the country to independence in 1980, had slowly and stealthily increased his grip on the running of the nation. Although people often portray Mugabe’s clampdown on opposition from the start of the millennium as to when he became paranoid, the wily old tyrant had been locking up and murdering political opponents since he rose to power. It was not until the country overwhelmingly defeated a referendum that would have enshrined Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s perpetual leader that he decided to turn on the country’s white and wealthy minority.

The expropriation of white farm land was certainly accepted as a hangover from Zimbabwe’s colonial past. The majority of white people were actually in favour of a redress, yet Mugabe’s henchmen set about the land grab vengeful and violently. Although seen by the Western media as a racist attack, it neglected to highlight the black opposition to Mugabe. White farmers, in most instances, had the means to move to other parts of the world. The black labourers simply did not.

For Flower and Olonga, this was not a protest drawn on racial lines. Flower saw that instances of political violence were being suppressed by the secret police. The tactics used by Mugabe were simply destroying the fabric of Zimbabwean society. The fact that only two men wore armbands, one black and one white, showed that Mugabe was dividing a nation, not just one race.

Both men then went out and played the match as if nothing happened. The only stark difference being a visible, yet indelible, piece of black tape around their arms that sent a simple, but clear message. It was a gesture, yet one that both men knew would have consequences.

As Zimbabwe exited the tournament, both men left the continent as death threats were issued, both heading for the UK. Flower joining Essex on the county cricket circuit, whereas Olonga was forced into hiding following a charge of treason by the Zimbabwean Government. Even ten years on, both men have yet to set foot into the country since.

Mugabe

Even despite the protest, worse was to come for Zimbabwe: manipulation of elections, political oppression and a destroyed economy. For millions of Zimbabweans, remaining in the country was a choice between life and death. Like the country’s economy, the national cricket team followed the same path, imploding as politics began to interfere with team selection. In 2004, the once proud and effective Zimbabwean cricket team withdrew from the ICC.

Since the decade has passed, both men have continued with their careers. Flower as the head coach of the English cricket team, whereas Olonga has become a public speaker and opera singer.

Flower and Olonga were not particularly close and to this day, they only speak on occasion. Yet at a time when they saw what was happening to their friends, family and fellow countrymen, they recognised that they had an opportunity to show what was happening from within the borders. It was not a publicity stunt, nor a cry for help; it was for them about the right thing. Only with hindsight did they understand that it would change their lives forever.

To this day, Mugabe may be creaking, but his grip on power remains strong. As elections approach in the months to come, it is too early to guess whether change may emerge. For Flower and Olonga, both exceptional cricketers, perhaps one day they will be able to return to a Zimbabwe they loved. Until then, their gesture will remain symbolic.

Leveson: The road to perdition

For those following the machinations on regulating the UK media, the story has moved beyond what we could have once called a saga. Almost three months since Lord Justice Brian Leveson delivered his report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, the Conservative Party (note, not the Coalition Government), led by Culture Secretary Maria Miller, announced in Parliament its intended reforms of the industry.

Leveson’s report, backed by both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as the campaign group Hacked Off, called for a statutory body, regulated by Ofcom, to oversee the running of the UK newspaper industry. For them, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the existing self-regulating body has only demonstrated that it does not have the capability to govern Britain’s fourth estate. Not only did several notable titles including the Daily Express and Daily Star opt-out, but it oversaw some examples of extreme impunity and criminality by some of Britain’s leading tabloids, most notably the phone-hacking of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Maria Miller

The Conservatives however; felt that a regulatory body was a step too far. In the Commons debate that ensued after Leveson’s deliverance, David Cameron echoed many of the feelings within the press industry that a regulated press in the UK, despite the instances of gross misconduct, is a step in the wrong direction. Their announcement this week proposing a Royal Charter, that would back a regulator; thus not directly affected by government policy was viewed differently from both sides. National editors such of Lionel Barber of the Financial Times argued against this legislation believing that organisations  governed by Royal Charters, such as the BBC are affected by party politics, whilst the Labour Party says it does not go far enough. To all extensive purposes, the Tories proposal could be defined as Leveson-lite, it adopts most of what the report put forward, minus a body that is underpinned by Parliament.

Whilst 75% of the public may agree that the press needs to be shackled, there are two things that I feel completely contravene the current debate. Firstly; that Leveson could be brought on to the statute via the backdoor through the defamation bill. Rather than a separate bill and debate going through Parliament, the reality is that Leveson’s idea of a media arbitration tribunal, underpinned by the statute, could simply added onto the defamation law. Whilst many in the press have argued about the encroaching privacy laws from Europe over the past decade, this decision would really undermine what the whole argument has been about.

Secondly, and what I feel to be more important is what the whole purpose of the legislation is there to demonstrate. Only this week, the London Evening Standard and Independent newspaper announced they would be merging sport and business desks in an attempt to save money. The Independent also announced that it would be become a seven-day operation. To some extent, this is not surprising; moving back of house operations together makes sense in this climate. It is already done by the Telegraph, both The Sun and The Mirror have become seven-day operations in recent years. Whilst continuing to be editorially independent both in content and style, newspapers are adapting to the financial climates of the digital world. Yet the argument is thus; why is the Government looking to regulate an industry that is dying?

The Daily Sketch closed in 1971, when will the next follow?

The Independent has made £80m of losses over the past four years. The Times is reported to make a loss of £40m a year, whilst the Guardian and Observer were around £44 million in the red last year. By 2020, it is conceivable in the current market that the Independent, Express, Mirror, Guardian, Financial Times and even The Sun may no longer exist. The UK has such a flourishing and even despite the recent political hostilities, a wide-ranging press and newspaper industry. Yes, something needs to be addressed, but regulation of this kind, is simply going to kill it.

Davos: A letter to America

For most onlookers the World Economic Forum in Davos appears to be nothing more than a get together for the financial elite at Europe’s most expensive ski resort. Every year, bankers and hedge fund managers to world leaders and economists all converge on this small Swiss outpost.

And whilst it may bring an opportunity for newspapers and sketch writers to poke fun at the size of the bar bills or British Prime Minister David Cameron making a speech on tax avoidance in Switzerland of all places, it does not detract from the important debate surrounding the global economy.

The past few years could not be described in any words other than disastrous, both for the growth and reputation, but what was noticeable from the commentary was the idea that we may now be beyond the worst.

This notion may be seen as intangible and outright outrageous to families living through year-on-year pay freezes and government cuts. Yet, even in the Euro zone, where unemployment remains high and economic growth for powerhouse Germany is negligible, delegates now believe that the structural reforms over the past 18 months have given greater stability to both the markets and the Euro as a currency. Critics may continue to point to the overhanging issues of bank recapitalisation, unsustainable level s of government debt and competitiveness, but even so, the financial milieu gave a cautious understanding that Europe is now showing slow signs of progress from where it was in 2011.

Perhaps, most significantly, however, was not talk of China’s economy slowing down but the growing optimism of the US economy.

The past few years have been one of uncertainty politically and economically. The onset of American decline or relative decline has been much spoken and written about. America’s retreat from certain areas of foreign policy, the rise of the BRIC countries and President Obama’s rhetoric of relativism towards the notion of American ‘exceptionalism’.

The exhaustive Presidential campaign and an inability in Congress to negotiate a debt deal have seen many people foretell a bleak future. America’s huge federal and state debts, the complicated tax system and ability to collect revenue, plus a sliding education system have only pointed to regression.

However; the delegates of Davos all have looked beyond that and have pointed to the energy revolution that may well transform the American economy. The shale gas revolution could lead America to become energy independent by 2035 as well as creating 1.5 million jobs by 2015. Last week’s figures of growing unemployment and a slip in the economy may have been troubling for some analysts; however these were inevitable following the aftermath of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Could his re-election leave Obama undeterred for reform? (Guardian)

In fact, America, despite the first economic contraction in three and a half years, is well placed to see new growth. As well as its energy revolution, geographically it sits between energy rich Canada and economically dynamic and investor friendly Mexico. Consumer spending is recovering after the past few years, house prices are rising and perhaps most significantly, a point echoed by investor Warren Buffett, is that US banks are in good health. Since the 2008 crisis, they have managed to rebuild their capital, payback bailouts and reduce their risks. This is in stark contrast to many of Europe’s banks which remain dangerously unstable.

Not forgetting the buoyant stock market and America’s cash rich companies. If confidence can be sustained, then who’s not to say they will start spending too and investing in more jobs and projects.

There are medium term issues that Washington will urgently need to look at, particularly the provision of healthcare and the enormous strain it places on both the federal and state budgets. As well as unreported issues like student debt. Washington can no longer seriously continue to proverbially kick the can down the road. America is well placed, but investors and bond holders will continue to remain cautious until America finally starts to deal with its debt.

The most encouraging aspect is that both President Obama and crucially, members of the Republican Party are willing to thrash something out, and not just for the short term.

A second term for Obama and the unburdening of electoral politics may finally allow the President to place some substantive reforms on the table and see America move the world economy. For Davos, it was the first time in several years that the perils of the Euro zone and the fiscal cliff could tentatively be put to one side. Tentatively being the important clause.

They’ll be hoping that next year the only bubbles are from the champagne.