By Tony Becca - From The Boundary 
CRICKET'S World Cup, the showpiece of the game, is five weeks away from its opening match, and based on the schedule there should be 52 other matches before the final in Johannesburg.
Chances are, however, there may not be so many, and the reason is that six of the 54 matches are scheduled for Zimbabwe, and two of the six teams slated to play in Zimbabwe are England and Australia.
Although the International Cricket Council has said it is OK to play in Zimbabwe, however, and although the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Australian Cricket Board have said they are willing to play in Zimbabwe, the two governments do not want them to play in Zimbabwe.
According to the British and Australian governments, the reason why their teams should not play in Zimbabwe is the deteriorating political and economic situation there, and although, according to them, they have no power to stop the teams from going to Zimbabwe, they are lobbying the game's ruling body in the two countries to respect their views and stay out of Zimbabwe.
According to the British government, the decision to go or not to go can only be taken by the ECB, and according to the ECB, who will be meeting with members of the government next week, if England do not go it will lose millions of pounds sterling and the government would then have to pick up the loss.
Although money is important, in a situation like this it should not be the determining factor as to whether matches should be played in Zimbabwe or not.
There should be two determining factors. One should be what is happening in Zimbabwe, the other should be the safety of the players. One should be the responsibility of the government and the other should be the responsibility of cricket administrators.
In other words, as independent as sport should be, it is only a part of society, and remembering that these are national teams and not individuals and that they represent the people and the country, just as governments can call the shot in other areas of a society, so should they when it comes to the participation of national teams.
If what is happening in Zimbabwe, therefore, is so bad that a boycott is necessary, the governments should step in. They certainly should not use cricket to do what they appear afraid to do.
As Nasser Hussain - the captain of England, and Steve Waugh - the captain of Australia's Test team - have said, in a situation like this, it is the politicians and not the players or the administrators who should make the decision.
There are two questions, therefore, that should be asked of the British and Australian governments.
One is this: Is what happening in Zimbabwe so bad that other governments should intervene? The other is this: If it is so bad in Zimbabwe that cricketers should not go there, should not play there, why is not the same pressure being applied on nationals who do business there?
Remembering that Zimbabwe is scheduled to tour England after the World Cup, there is also another question to be asked of the British government.
If things are so bad in Zimbabwe that England should not play there why not tell the ECB that it should not host them?
In certain situations, governments should have the power to say yes or no. Right now, however, the governments of Britain and Australia do not have that power, and whether they did or not, that is not important.
What is important is that the ICC, after checking and finding that it is safe to play there, want to play in Zimbabwe, that the cricket administrators in England, in Australia and everywhere else are willing to play in Zimbabwe, and that the players have no problem playing in Zimbabwe.
The six matches scheduled for Zimbabwe should therefore be played in Zimbabwe.
