Why Howard was wrong and Taylor is right for the ICC

Hi Vinay, that's an interesting reply with interesting speculation. To be honest, though, I'm starting to tire of the worldwide debate on this. Most of it is becoming ad hominem and has moved away from the principles at issue. Of course Sambit Bal is correct that one side of the spectrum should "Stop canonizing Howard", but Bal seems to have missed that this is only being done because the other side won't "stop crucifying Howard". These exaggerated reactions are irrelevant. What is at issue is the abandonment of process, for selfish reasons at the very least, possibly vicious ones also. Bal's initial reaction to the whole thing focussed only on this side of things, and it was good. Like the rest of us, he has become sidetracked since then. I know you responded to Ken "I am not endorsing Mark Taylor." However others are. For example Bal's canonisation article concludes "Bring on Mark Taylor. Now that's what you'd call a worthy candidate." One wonders how many of these people are aware that Howard admires Taylor and the feeling is mutual. Politically there would be very little difference between them.

"The way forward is to have a former Test cricketer to head the ICC." Sound advice, Vinay. I hope they hear you in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, South Africa and Zimbabwe before the plethora of politicians, generals and other hangers-on get their snouts in cricket's trough. Australia has NO political involvement in its cricket administration, other than the safe passage of its competitors.

Hi Vinay, thanks for your passionate response, we are obviously both happy in our different positions, and can live happily with each other. There are a number of things I find inconsistent in your response, but I shouldn't labour them. However having mentioned inconsistencies, it would be unfair not mention some at least briefly. One is that you write "The President’s role is that of a “greet and meet” maitre de. He can influence didley doo." That being the case, why the fear of Howard having the position? Another is "The notion of Howard being tough and cleaning up the ICC is naive and wishful thinking." That being the case, why would he be divisive? (Incidentally, you are right about the wishful thinking. But it doesn't mean that one shouldn't try.) Really your whole argument seems to rest on two things: 1. You feel in your bones that Howard is racist. OK, please document the evidence for us. Probably you will say Tampa Bay or aboriginal reconciliation or detention camps or things like that. Yes, there is a sense in which these are racist. But Gideon Haigh shows how these accusations do not survive deeper scrutiny. For example, "mandatory detention was an innovation of the administration before his." One of the things that so infuriated Howard's opponents is that they could never get mud to stick on him. You feel in your bones that Howard is racist, and you may well be right. However you won't be able to prove it. People associate Howard with a long time ago, but as Kersi pointed out in his opening comment, Howard didn't actually come to power until the mid-1990s, when Australia was already firmly multi-cultural. It became even more so under Howard. Usman Khawaja could not have happened in the Menzies era but the fact is that this kid learned his cricket in the Howard era, and there seems little doubt that Howard would be absolutely delighted by this. 2. You simply don't like Howard. This is a better reason, and I'll give you this. You are within rights to exult in your victory like a World Cup football fan. However you shouldn't make it out to be a victory for reason. This being said, the parameters of the nomination process are not whether the nominee is liked. There is no doubt that other nominees have not been liked in some quarters, however protocol has been kept and the nomination has proceeded. If, seeing Howard, the Indians and others decide that suddenly they don't like the process for nominating vice-presidents, then they should work on getting the process changed. Finally, your mention of Sonia Gandhi is interesting. What price that Howard knows her and can get access to her? As I wrote elsewhere, it's not for nothing that Howard was dubbed "Lazarus with a Triple Bypass". He can come back from the dead. If he stays in this game, it will be because he has a means of coming back from the dead. As you yourself said, it would only take one raised eyebrow from Sonia Gandhi.

Given Speed is an Aussie who, within recent times, was head of the ICC ... then surely if it was a true rotation policy and the kiwis put forward a strong candidate, which they did, then CA should have had the good grace to accept their nomination - that they didn't and railroaded Howard into the fray - then this mess should be squarely dumped at their door

Vinay, I think you have baited your hook well and landed some good fish. It is a perenial game.

Vinay, in a posting elsewhere you asked for my opinion. I responded there without knowing what your views on this issue were. Having seen this article, now I'll respond again. Basically I feel that Brett McK has hit the nail on the head. The issue is not whether Howard was or is the best candidate. Rather, the issue is that process has been violated without reason. And the reason there are no reasons is because, as Gideon Haigh has catalogued and argued with great care and detail (see "The case for Howard" in cricinfo), none of the speculated reasons stack up. Maybe in the bottom of his heart John Howard is a racist, but there is not even any flimsy evidence for this, let alone any solid evidence (see Gideon Haigh). To return to the issue of process, "[Malcolm] Speed added that Australia and New Zealand have previously accepted nominations despite reservations." Let us call a spade a spade: Cricket Australia put forward Howard because they would like the ICC to be a more effective organization. Whether they arm-twisted or convinced NZ of this is irrelevant: Cricket NZ went along with it, and Justin Vaughan is still standing very strongly with Australia on it. Of course the Indians don't like this, because they would prefer a patsy to be at the helm. David Morgan was uncomfortable enough for them, and John Howard will take the game to a much higher league altogether. I can see that this has the potential to be "divisive" in the cricketing world. Strong governance often is. But there are many of us who are desperate for stronger and more effective governance from the ICC. Maybe Howard will be a dud, but he could not be any worse than the succession of ineffective leaders who have occupied this role. In all likelihood Mark Taylor would be another patsy. Can you really imagine him having the political skill to make any progress on the big issues of cricket? I think what you always have to do is imagine these people in talks with someone like Lalit Modi. He would have Tayor wrapped around his finger, however Howard would be an altogether different proposition. I could swear that at most times you, Vinay, have been a man strongly in favor of better governance in cricket. I can well understand that you don't like Howard - not many people do. However it seems odd to me that you would be so strongly against a man who does at least have the potential to make the ICC a more effective body and to make some progress on the issues that ail cricket. I don't suspect I have changed your mind one iota with this comment, but I just wanted to give you some insight into how the other side feels and thinks. My argument is not one that follows blindly from my skin color, because you'll find that Sambit Bal of Cricinfo is of the same opinion (i.e., that proper process has been violated without any good reason).

Vinay you mentioned that CA, ECB and NZC have had ample chances to voice their concerns, but look at what happened to Malcolm Speed when he wanted to make the report of the Zimbabwe Audit public, Zimbabwe cricket called in some favours and got him sacked, that report has been burried by those who took his place which was the coalition of BCCI, PCB, Zimbabwe Cricket. Howard would've asked the questions that no one has been game to while the BCCI has made it's play for power. It's a sad indictment on the levels of corruption within the ICC that they are going to this extent to protect their own.

Getting away from the politics/racism debate of Howard - I must say that I don't agree he was the wrong choice but everyone has already decided where they stand on that and it's probably irrelevant now anyway - why would Mark Taylor make a good choice? In all his time in the spotlight he's come across as a great bloke, down to earth, personable, he's done some charity work and of course as a long time national captain he has the cricketing respect angle down pat. There is zero evidence though that the guy has any talent for business management or administrative duties. Instead of a tough, experienced man with a love for the game who would come in with a critical eye and not be afraid of shaking the place up, we are instead going to get a lovely bloke who will pose for the photos, not offend anyone and do whatever he is told. Which would really be better for the future of the ICC?

This article is not about John Howard being the wrong candidate. It is an attack on the Australian body politic. I have no objection to such a debate simply not when it is cloaked behind a facade of a sport. There were record levels of immigration during Howard's tenure. There was no more passionate advocate for real resources at the local community level to indigenous people than Mal Brough. The current labor government has not discontinued his focus. I am witness to the simple provision of clean water to some outback indigenous communities under his watch. . I do recall his simple words . "they are citizens. it is our duty as their government to supply clean water.This is not an issue for negotiation with external stakeholders" I am reminded of the populist Louisiana Governor Huey Long being petitioned by poor African Americans for access to a hospital in their area. Huey subsequently attended a white only hospital in their area expressing violent outrage at an African American women being treated in the outhouse of the white hospital. He stated he would not let his white wife go to such a hospital. The Legislature built a new hospital for the African Americans. Sadly for Huey he was later assassinated. The immediate costs of immigration are borne by the current working classes in Australia in terms of pressure on low skilled jobs education and housing. There are not racial riots and most people get on with their lives.. I do not make excuses for mindless racist rants but I understand some older Australians and their difficulties in walking down their suburban shopping strips and seeing foreign languade newspapers covering shop windows from top to bottom. I find it exciting but i am mindful of their difficulties. i acknowledge their defence that they are not responsible for Australian Lebanese youths attacking Indians in Harris park or the 5 Australian Koreans charged with assault occassioning grievious bodily harm of Indian students in Melbourne or Anglo australians doing likewise.. They are patently aware of new middle class well educated migrants or at best economic residents with little nexus to this country exploiting the provision of selective school placements or the subsidised private school system whilst state comprehensive high schools in working class areas with few extra resouces try to cope with migrants with little English , tribal backgrounds and poor education together with the traditional working class.. It is no longer fashionable to be working class in Australia. The Australian elites have always held their own in contempt. The middle classes have now jumped onto the band wagon and everyone is aspirational. The feeling is perfectly mutual. The Australian working class has no affinity with academic classes or the Australian elites.Never have never will. If this relationship becomes dysfunctional in the short term and includes regional centres my concern is we may not have many in our armed forces. Howard exploited this unease about a trickle of refugees and immigration in general to gain votes on the one hand whilst on the other one hand overseeing one of the largest increases in immigration from south east Asia and the subcontinent in our history over the last decade... Howard was not a racist. Howard was not evil .He was a a very effective and manipulative local conservative politician. He sacraficed several thousand refugess in detention centres to get his multi racial skilled high immigration program through. Whitlam sacraficed East Timor for better relations with Indonesia. It was Howard who committed our armed forces to East timor not Mr Keating. Howard was not a statesman but that does not mean he never acted without statesmenlike qualities Like it or not history will record that it was Howard who took the risk of war to free East Timor. It was Howard who at great personal political risk got national gun control laws through all state and federal parliaments who reformed indirect taxes with the GST. When asked about the Democrat amendments to the original GST legislation Howard replied " 80 % is better than nothing " Always the pragmatist Howard does have roll call of significant political achievement I did not even vote for the guy but I refuse to join the chorus of unthinking abuse. It took some strength of character to say no to an apology to our indigenous people when the easy thing to so was say a meaningless sorry. The rejection of Howard by the ICC is a personal blow to the cricketloving Howard a rebuff to Cricket Australia and the final nail in the coffin of the ICC It is now at best a hollow log . Rest in irrelevance ICC. India has and continues to have one of the poorest records in its treatment of its scheduled castes and tribes. Its indigenous people lose their lands as we speak it is simply not publicised in Australia only Maoist resistence/ambushes.Yet I have a profound admiration for the pluralityand complexity of the Indian people and body politic and the continuance of India's democratic system since partition despite at times overwhelming internal and external pressures. I am glad the subcontinent flexes its muscles.I do not fear India. However i recognise it for what it is an expression of power.

What a closed eyed Australian perspective this is! We are dealing with a joint Australia and New Zealand nomination, and the New Zealand nominee stood down to make way for Australia's politician, who had a love for the old traditional game and not much more. The nominee needs to be someone with close involvement and track record in the playing and administration of the game, preferably in all forms of the game. If we are going to have an Australasian nomination then let's return to Sir John Anderson, the original New Zealand nominee sidelined by Australia's dominance. Since we are throwing names into the pool we could also add Sir Richard Hadlee and Martin Crowe, both great players and keen observers and commentators of the game.

I entirely agree that Howard's appointment was not in the interest of the future development of cricket around the world.His record on human rights issues, as you say, is appalling and don't tell me this did not influence the thinking of the non white countries in the ICC. That Howard received so much support for CA says a lot about the attitudes that sadly still exist in some sections of the Australian community