The ICC's refusal to accept John Howard's nomination as its Vice President raises questions about the integrity of the Council, writes Joshua Bell.
With great dismay, I have been following the debacle surrounding the International Cricket Council’s rejection of former Prime Minister John Howard’s nomination to be its vice-president (and therefore future president).
These events expose a grim reality that has been kept under the radar for some time and, to paraphrase Marcellus’ famous statement in Hamlet, something is rotten in the world of cricket.
Allow me to start by setting the scene.
The ICC is cricket’s premium body, much like FIFA is for football. It organises major international events such as the World Cup, appoints match officials, and co-ordinates anti-corruption and match-fixing efforts. It is comprised of 104 members, of which only ten are full Test playing nations. These ten are the governing members of the ICC, who decide who will be the ICC president.
These ten nations are divided into regions. The African region is represented by South Africa and Zimbabwe; the Asian region is comprised of Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; Australia and New Zealand are from the East Asia-Pacific region; and Europe and the Americas are respectively represented by England and the West Indies.
My understanding is that protocol dictates that the presidency of the ICC is shared among these regions in a cyclical fashion. That is, they take turns to nominate the President. In 2012, the Presidency of the ICC will belong to East Asia-Pacific. John Howard is the nominated candidate. However, he has been rejected by the Afro-Asia voting bloc, which comfortably dominates the ICC. As Malcolm Conn from The Australian notes, “cricket’s seven Afro-Asian countries…could not even look Howard in the eye” when they refused to permit him to address the ICC board or allow a formal vote on the issue. They simply stonewalled his nomination.
The question that needs to be asked is why.
Suspiciously, the ICC refuses to disclose its reasons and it seems that even Howard has been kept in the dark. Nonetheless, insiders point to his strong anti-Mugabe stance and his lack of experience in cricket administration.
It is not difficult to quash these so-called ‘reasons’.
Zimbabwe has been instrumental in the Afro-Asia bloc’s opposition to Howard’s candidacy. The source of their opposition is clear: while in office he championed strong sanctions against Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his cronies. That is to be expected from Zimbabwe. But since when has taking a strong stand against a dictator who has presided over a murderous regime, rampant political intimidation and rigged elections been a flaw worthy of rejection by cricket’s peak body? One can only be amazed at the hypocrisy of South Africa in supporting this argument, particularly when one remembers that it is led by the African National Congress which 20 years ago relied on economic sanctions in the name of democracy and human rights to help end apartheid. Perhaps solidarity with a fellow African nation, no matter how draconian, is more important than democratic principle?
Furthermore, the rejection of Howard on the basis of being unfamiliar with cricket administration is ludicrous. Howard can point to over eleven years as Prime Minister, having guided a highly prosperous economy, dealt with terrorism, war, the Asian financial crisis, GST, Waterfront and industrial relations reform – to name but a few challenges. No other candidate could come close to those credentials. Running the ICC would be a walk in the park for him. The Afro-Asia bloc also has the nerve to suggest that his political pedigree is an impediment; but, in so doing, they demonstrate their hypocrisy because the current ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is an Indian politician and former Defence Minister. Some even contend that Howard is unqualified because he has not been a cricket player. I thought he was running for an administrative role, not Cricketer of the Year?
In short, the unofficial ‘reasons’ bandied around do not even require a detailed treatment to expose them as fundamentally flawed.
Something far more sinister is at play here.
Consider the following facts.
In 2008 former ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed was sacked for attempting to expose dubious financial dealings by the Zimbabwean Cricket Board. The report he produced has never been published.
During the 2007/8 summer, umpire Steve Bucknor was sacked by the ICC at the insistence of the Indians for failing to give Andrew Symonds out caught behind. But when Harbhajan Singh was suspended for racially vilifying Symonds, the Indians threatened to withdraw from the series. And the ICC caved in. The double standards are tangible from space. Can you imagine what would have happened if matters had been reversed?
Furthermore, how is it that Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has been able to retain full voting rights and the millions in dividends that it receives by virtue of being a full member – yet the ICC banned apartheid South Africa?
The answer lies in corruption. Not so much in the sense of embezzlement, but in terms of favouritism, and a distinct lack of transparency, openness and accountability. Ironically, those are supposed to be the ICC’s guiding values.
There does not seem to be any other explanation for the facts mentioned and for the ICC’s recent rejection of Howard.
They know he will not tolerate financial mismanagement. He will keep members accountable. He will bring common sense to the role and not allow cricket to become the bastion of political correctness. In other words, he will restore the game’s reputation as a gentleman’s game. Something that the Afro-Asian dominated ICC has only tarnished through its double standards. Indeed, Conn sums these thoughts up when he writes that “a decent, well-run governing body would enthusiastically endorse its chief executive strictly enforcing propriety and good governance. Not the ICC”.
As if to highlight my point, the Indian Cricket authorities have now branded Howard a racist for rightly refusing to withdraw his candidacy. Of course - where logic fails, the race card comes to the rescue.
The ICC no longer deserves the credibility it receives from Australia, New Zealand or England’s membership. As far as I am concerned, the Afro-Asia bloc can have their ICC until they are prepared to put aside politics and play fair.
In the meantime, may the game return to its traditional home at the MCC and Lord’s.
These ten nations are divided into regions. The African region is represented by South Africa and Zimbabwe; the Asian region is comprised of Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; Australia and New Zealand are from the East Asia-Pacific region; and Europe and the Americas are respectively represented by England and the West Indies.
My understanding is that protocol dictates that the presidency of the ICC is shared among these regions in a cyclical fashion. That is, they take turns to nominate the President. In 2012, the Presidency of the ICC will belong to East Asia-Pacific. John Howard is the nominated candidate. However, he has been rejected by the Afro-Asia voting bloc, which comfortably dominates the ICC. As Malcolm Conn from The Australian notes, “cricket’s seven Afro-Asian countries…could not even look Howard in the eye” when they refused to permit him to address the ICC board or allow a formal vote on the issue. They simply stonewalled his nomination.
The question that needs to be asked is why.
Suspiciously, the ICC refuses to disclose its reasons and it seems that even Howard has been kept in the dark. Nonetheless, insiders point to his strong anti-Mugabe stance and his lack of experience in cricket administration.
It is not difficult to quash these so-called ‘reasons’.
Zimbabwe has been instrumental in the Afro-Asia bloc’s opposition to Howard’s candidacy. The source of their opposition is clear: while in office he championed strong sanctions against Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his cronies. That is to be expected from Zimbabwe. But since when has taking a strong stand against a dictator who has presided over a murderous regime, rampant political intimidation and rigged elections been a flaw worthy of rejection by cricket’s peak body? One can only be amazed at the hypocrisy of South Africa in supporting this argument, particularly when one remembers that it is led by the African National Congress which 20 years ago relied on economic sanctions in the name of democracy and human rights to help end apartheid. Perhaps solidarity with a fellow African nation, no matter how draconian, is more important than democratic principle?
Furthermore, the rejection of Howard on the basis of being unfamiliar with cricket administration is ludicrous. Howard can point to over eleven years as Prime Minister, having guided a highly prosperous economy, dealt with terrorism, war, the Asian financial crisis, GST, Waterfront and industrial relations reform – to name but a few challenges. No other candidate could come close to those credentials. Running the ICC would be a walk in the park for him. The Afro-Asia bloc also has the nerve to suggest that his political pedigree is an impediment; but, in so doing, they demonstrate their hypocrisy because the current ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is an Indian politician and former Defence Minister. Some even contend that Howard is unqualified because he has not been a cricket player. I thought he was running for an administrative role, not Cricketer of the Year?
In short, the unofficial ‘reasons’ bandied around do not even require a detailed treatment to expose them as fundamentally flawed.
Something far more sinister is at play here.
Consider the following facts.
In 2008 former ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed was sacked for attempting to expose dubious financial dealings by the Zimbabwean Cricket Board. The report he produced has never been published.
During the 2007/8 summer, umpire Steve Bucknor was sacked by the ICC at the insistence of the Indians for failing to give Andrew Symonds out caught behind. But when Harbhajan Singh was suspended for racially vilifying Symonds, the Indians threatened to withdraw from the series. And the ICC caved in. The double standards are tangible from space. Can you imagine what would have happened if matters had been reversed?
Furthermore, how is it that Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has been able to retain full voting rights and the millions in dividends that it receives by virtue of being a full member – yet the ICC banned apartheid South Africa?
The answer lies in corruption. Not so much in the sense of embezzlement, but in terms of favouritism, and a distinct lack of transparency, openness and accountability. Ironically, those are supposed to be the ICC’s guiding values.
There does not seem to be any other explanation for the facts mentioned and for the ICC’s recent rejection of Howard.
They know he will not tolerate financial mismanagement. He will keep members accountable. He will bring common sense to the role and not allow cricket to become the bastion of political correctness. In other words, he will restore the game’s reputation as a gentleman’s game. Something that the Afro-Asian dominated ICC has only tarnished through its double standards. Indeed, Conn sums these thoughts up when he writes that “a decent, well-run governing body would enthusiastically endorse its chief executive strictly enforcing propriety and good governance. Not the ICC”.
As if to highlight my point, the Indian Cricket authorities have now branded Howard a racist for rightly refusing to withdraw his candidacy. Of course - where logic fails, the race card comes to the rescue.
The ICC no longer deserves the credibility it receives from Australia, New Zealand or England’s membership. As far as I am concerned, the Afro-Asia bloc can have their ICC until they are prepared to put aside politics and play fair.
In the meantime, may the game return to its traditional home at the MCC and Lord’s.
Joshua Bell is studying Law and International Studies at the University of Adelaide.
There are more than a few racists in India. Sounds like projection to me.
Posted by: Ben | July 6, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Whether the bleeding heart PC's like it or not,it is simply normal BLACK RACIST attack and nothing less.What would happen if we decided to have our own white ICC and exclude t6he dark races ?
Posted by: Neal | July 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM
No doubt the ICC are fully aware of Howard's discriminatory actions against gun owners in Australia. Someone killed some people with a gun, so Howard banned guns. Since then several others have been killed with cricket bats. Maybe Howard will ban cricket bats! Howard should go into a quiet corner and rot in oblivion.
Posted by: Peter Whelan | July 6, 2010 at 08:00 PM
This might clear things up.
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/465618.html
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | July 6, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Peter, that's probably the stupidest thing I've read in quite some time.
You're not doing your LDP (or this new ORP?) any favours with that kind of crap.
Posted by: Rog | July 7, 2010 at 09:41 AM