John Howard

I normally blog only about on-field events. The John Howard story though has evoked such passionate reactions that I felt I must comment. It is a sad situation because this was so preventable. The ICC is proud about the fact they are a democratic organization - as they should be. The ICC's constitution allows boards to vote against a candidate they deem unworthy. However, a democratic, transparent system which is what they claim to have - should ensure that the public is kept informed as to the reasons for the rejection of Howard. I'm no fan of John Howard - but he certainly deserves to know the reasoning behind his exclusion.

Most Australian commentators have come out and blamed the BCCI for Howard's nomination being rejected. The BCCI are anything but saints but I truly believe that off late the BCCI seem to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in cricket. In this case it's even stranger because the BCCI were actually one of the few bodies that did not have a problem with Howard's nomination. It voted against him only because boards that normally support the BCCI had a problem with him.

This brings us to the question of the so called Asian bloc and how they gang up against the rest. I find this quite ironic because this is precisely what the white nations do themselves. Any contentious issue and you will generally find the white nations (Australia, England, New Zealand) lining up on one side and the non-white nations on the other. Whilst this is certainly unfortunate and quite obviously not the best way to go about solving issues, it is something that is unlikely to change. It would have been foolish of the BCCI to go against nations that normally support every stance they take (rightly or wrongly).

I also find it difficult to understand why John Howard was nominated in the first place. Cricket Australia should have known that his nomination was going to create a furore. Five mins on Wikipedia will tell you that Howard has been accused of being anti-aborigine, anti-immigrant and he apparently also called Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Now I have no idea whether these accusations are true. Nevertheless, mud sticks. You could argue that these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with cricket and you will be right. But the romantic notion that sport and politics cannot mix remains just that - a romantic notion.

What can be proved, however, is that John Howard called Muthiah Muralitharan a chucker. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. But when you are in a position of power it is important to exercise that right with a degree of caution. Murali is a Sri Lankan icon. Sri Lankans are passionate about their cricket and many feel Howard insulted Sri Lanka as a nation when he criticized Murali. You may think this is far fetched - so let's flip the coin - will Australia embrace an ICC head from Sri Lanka who has gone public with negative remarks directed at Sir Donald Bradman? Don't count on it!