The Age
Peter  Roebuck
May 28, 2010
Not for a second should the cricket boards of Australia and New Zealand succumb to the reprehensible campaign under way behind the scenes at the International Cricket Council to block John Howard’s nomination as deputy president of the game’s governing body.
Although this writer preferred Sir John Anderson, the seasoned candidate from across the ditch, Howard was legitimately put forward by the boards of the two countries.
Under the customs of the ICC the other directors were duty bound to accept him. Instead they have worked themselves into a fluster of fake indignation. In reality they are scared of Howard. After all, he might call them to account.
There are plenty of reasons to object to the former prime minister, none to block his path.
Make no mistake, the case against Howard is as dishonest as it is inconsistent. A board that welcomed Percy Sonn, who declared the 2003 Zimbabwe election free and fair though he knew it was a lie, thereby condemning Zimbabweans to years of torment; a board that accepted Ray Mali, whose co-operation with the apartheid government was exposed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; a board that listens to Peter Chingoka and Ozias Bute is poorly placed to turn its back on Jack the Ripper, let alone a former PM and cricket fanatic.
The cricket boards of India, South Africa and Zimbabwe are leading the campaign to prevent the antipodean nominee taking up his position. Their reasons are different and mostly false. India says that it does not want another politician to become involved in the game, let alone one as contentious as Howard. India’s real reason is that they fear Howard’s strength and skills and resent his high-handed conduct in the ongoing debate about uranium exports. After decades watching the West run the game, they intend to retain complete control. No less pertinently, they have always been backed by the Zimbabweans and now return the favour.
South Africa is supposedly offended by Howard’s crass position on the sporting boycott of the apartheid regime. In the past 40 years cricket has endured two particularly detestable tyrannies: apartheid and Zanu-PF. Only a few observers, including your correspondent, consistently condemned both. Howard argued against boycotting Bothaland, but cancelled a tour to Mugabeland. It was bound to cause friction. At least, though, he’s right about the evil of the day, and that cannot be said of these opponents. He may have failed the apartheid test, but it’s high time ICC directors passed the Zanu-PF test.
In any case, apartheid died almost 20 years ago, and the ANC has given cabinet positions to members of the former National Party. In fact, Cricket South Africa is merely appeasing its pals across the Limpopo. Presumably Mtutuzeli Nyoka, CSA’s affable chairman, has forgotten that the greatest rogues can have the sweetest tongues.
Predictably, the Zimbabweans are the main culprits. Chingoka, Zimbabwe Cricket’s long-standing chairman, wields an influence far in excess of his calibre. A charming and ruthless man, he knows that Howard has his number and fears the repercussions. He might even try to obtain the reports into fraud at ZC produced by local detectives. Like his paymasters, Chingoka and Bute have a lot to lose and so will stop at nothing to retain power. Right now that means blocking Howard.
Admittedly ZC has in recent months taken steps to clean up its act, organising franchises, invigorating schools coaching, employing past players. The causes have been numerous, not least the ameliorating influence of Cricket South Africa, the emergence of a so-called unity government and, especially, the telling appointment of David Coltart, a man of integrity, as Sports Minister. Alas, one of the franchises has been put in the hands of a reprobate who once publicly called the Australians ”cheats and f—ing convicts”.
But none of this matters. The overriding fact is Howard was properly chosen by the responsible boards and the ICC is duty bound to accept him. Anything else flies in the face of the very rules introduced precisely to stop these sorts of disputes arising, let alone escalating.
Howard’s nomination may have been insensitive, even provocative, but it was legitimate. The conduct of the South African, Indian and Zimbabwe cricket boards shows them in the worst possible light.
Peter Roebuck is an Age cricket commentator.