Not Happy John!
So John Howard, ex-PM of Australia has failed another "election". In some ways you can say that he lost a winnable one this time unlike the one he lost to Kevin Rudd in Nov 2007. I honestly thought he would have got used to loosing by now! Apparently, you can neither take out the politics from the politician nor a politician from politics!! Most Pollies in all countries have a very sharp sense of smell; they will smell-out power even from a chook-raffle! Top level sports administration, obviously represents a pot of honey to a bear; especially to those who are missing their power-fix. And when a sport interests lots of people and spins a few bobs, it is certainly like a full syringe to a junkie.
But you can fool some people sometimes. Little Johhny is now facing the barbs from the thorns he nurtured during his tenure. While he did some excellent work to turn Australian economy around, his ultra-conservative beliefs could not adept to the fast changing canvas of this small but increasingly multi-cultural society. For whatever reason, even at the peak of his powers, he was viewed by many (and not necessarily coloured population only) as a torch-bearer of long defunct white-Australia policy. His utter refusal to apologise to the aborigines for whatever reason, did not help his cause. For all I know, he may be merely simplistic; convinced that anything different from his belief does not merit any attention from him. Fair enough, for an individual. Unfortunately that is not a trait of a leader. Great leaders never divide; they have a gift to unite the most diverse. Looking at the diverse nature of ICC, where 10 full member countries represent a myriad of colours and cultures, I was surprised that Cricket Australia manipulated Howard above what would have been a very welcome candidate like the kiwi Sir John Anderson, especially when Australia already had their turn in Malcolm Grey. All those detractors crying foul and complaining today about subcontinent's so-called power "abuse", very conveniently forget that CA did exactly the same by bullying New Zealand cricket. CA did that simply because they could. Those who live in glass houses don't throw stones at others.
While Australia and New Zealand had an option to choose their representative to head ICC, their representative was eventually going to represent all member countries. With an incredibly complex cultural mix of ICC, what you need is a candidate acceptable to all. If CA had applied that criteria, Howard would have failed in CA's board room itself. I am sure CA board members are not naive. So the obvious inference is that they wanted to bring in Howard as their Axe-man; someone who would not hesitate to seek and chuck out the "rotten eggs". After all, those backward third world and corrupt countries can only produce corrupt leaders who are now corrupting the beautiful English game. Why is that so hard to understand? What all the "chest-beaters" in Australia (I can actually hear a giggle from across the Tasman sea!) conveniently forget is that CA (probably with support from England) tried a political stunt which back fired. It happens; get on with it.
In politics, there is a critical process called face-saving formula. What now, is the face-saving formula for CA? Re-nominating Howard would be provocative and more importantly, likely to get snubbed again! I am not sure if CA is actually that masochistic! Sir John Anderson is hardly going to accept the used-towel nomination, especially when his claim to the nomination merited first-choice. In fact I can see NZ completely washing their hands off this affair. CA can dig in their heels and refuse to nominate any one. That will certainly look churlish. Like it or not, political and economic reality is that CA has to participate in this process as a part of ICC board and nominate someone who can take the attention away from this affair and still become a respected board member and a fantastic representative of all cricket playing countries. Some one like Gideon Haigh (who seems to have a one-point agenda of BCCI bashing) claims there was no better nominee for CA than John Howard. Get real Haighy; Mark Taylor will be well respected and will contribute towards bringing closer, all cricket boards. And that is lot more worthy cause than mending the ruffled ego of little Johny...
But you can fool some people sometimes. Little Johhny is now facing the barbs from the thorns he nurtured during his tenure. While he did some excellent work to turn Australian economy around, his ultra-conservative beliefs could not adept to the fast changing canvas of this small but increasingly multi-cultural society. For whatever reason, even at the peak of his powers, he was viewed by many (and not necessarily coloured population only) as a torch-bearer of long defunct white-Australia policy. His utter refusal to apologise to the aborigines for whatever reason, did not help his cause. For all I know, he may be merely simplistic; convinced that anything different from his belief does not merit any attention from him. Fair enough, for an individual. Unfortunately that is not a trait of a leader. Great leaders never divide; they have a gift to unite the most diverse. Looking at the diverse nature of ICC, where 10 full member countries represent a myriad of colours and cultures, I was surprised that Cricket Australia manipulated Howard above what would have been a very welcome candidate like the kiwi Sir John Anderson, especially when Australia already had their turn in Malcolm Grey. All those detractors crying foul and complaining today about subcontinent's so-called power "abuse", very conveniently forget that CA did exactly the same by bullying New Zealand cricket. CA did that simply because they could. Those who live in glass houses don't throw stones at others.
While Australia and New Zealand had an option to choose their representative to head ICC, their representative was eventually going to represent all member countries. With an incredibly complex cultural mix of ICC, what you need is a candidate acceptable to all. If CA had applied that criteria, Howard would have failed in CA's board room itself. I am sure CA board members are not naive. So the obvious inference is that they wanted to bring in Howard as their Axe-man; someone who would not hesitate to seek and chuck out the "rotten eggs". After all, those backward third world and corrupt countries can only produce corrupt leaders who are now corrupting the beautiful English game. Why is that so hard to understand? What all the "chest-beaters" in Australia (I can actually hear a giggle from across the Tasman sea!) conveniently forget is that CA (probably with support from England) tried a political stunt which back fired. It happens; get on with it.
In politics, there is a critical process called face-saving formula. What now, is the face-saving formula for CA? Re-nominating Howard would be provocative and more importantly, likely to get snubbed again! I am not sure if CA is actually that masochistic! Sir John Anderson is hardly going to accept the used-towel nomination, especially when his claim to the nomination merited first-choice. In fact I can see NZ completely washing their hands off this affair. CA can dig in their heels and refuse to nominate any one. That will certainly look churlish. Like it or not, political and economic reality is that CA has to participate in this process as a part of ICC board and nominate someone who can take the attention away from this affair and still become a respected board member and a fantastic representative of all cricket playing countries. Some one like Gideon Haigh (who seems to have a one-point agenda of BCCI bashing) claims there was no better nominee for CA than John Howard. Get real Haighy; Mark Taylor will be well respected and will contribute towards bringing closer, all cricket boards. And that is lot more worthy cause than mending the ruffled ego of little Johny...
Comments
Post a Comment