04 July,2010 08:23 AM IST | | Ian Chappell
Howard's credentials for ICC vice-presidency were flawed
The only good that can come from the unseemly John Howard fiasco is that it might finally galvanise the game into doing something serious about making the ICC an accountable and more transparent body.
The fact that the ICC president is chosen on a rotation basis rather than on merit is in itself an indictment on the game. That it depends on such a public service type system to decide it's most prestigious position is a disgrace.
To then agree to a process for nominating the person of highest office and when that very system produces a candidate, albeit one of dubious cricketing credentials, connive to reject that nominee without a reason, is very unedifying behaviour.
The first thought is this is pay back for the power of veto that was held by Australia and England from the early days of the ICC right through to the 1990's.
There was never any doubt that this rankled with fans from the sub-continent and the Caribbean. Whenever this was mentioned to administrators from Australia, they would blithely say, "But that power's never been used."
Those administrators failed to understand that just the inclusion in the constitution of a power of veto that smacked of a "superiority mentality" was enough to cause enormous anger.
However, if Howard's rejection was on the basis that some in the ICC didn't want him "snooping around" and uncovering something which might be embarrassing, then it's high time some concentrated digging commenced to see what that "something" might be.
Howard's credentials to do the job were flawed from the outset. For starters, his self-confessed preference for Test cricket presents a major problem for a game that relies so heavily on the shorter versions for its finance.
Cricket needs to take some hard decisions on its future path and Howard's lack of knowledge, not just of the game but also its history would've been a hindrance.
That being the case Howard would've had two choices. Either he wades into the task ill-equipped or he relies heavily on Cricket Australia's input. Neither choice is a good one. He's either vulnerable to being outflanked by more experienced administrators or else he puts forward proposals which are viewed as favouring Australia.
From the moment Howard's name was put forward as a potential candidate for the vice-presidency it had great potential for conflict. Hopefully, the resultant controversy will be the catalyst to a major restructuring for a body which has become increasingly more interested in power than the best interests of the game.
