Can't see for the transparency

David Morgan and Sharad Pawar are the two men in line for the next ICC President © Getty Images

Just who are they trying to kid? The ICC claims it has a "fair and transparent" process for electing its next president and that he will be the "most suitable candidate". Oh, come on!

For the first time in the organisation's history of horse-trading the ICC has set up a nominations committee. Essentially it was to stop a controversial Sri Lankan businessman becoming the next leader, which had to be done. But, if the new process is "fair and transparent" and designed to produce the "most suitable candidate", then I'm Roland Lefebvre.

As the only candidates for the post of next ICC president are the ECB chairman, David Morgan, below and the Indian board president, Sharad Pawar, we could be forgiven for thinking that the post is reserved for the chairmen of Full Member (ie Test-playing) countries. Every previous incumbent since Australia and England lost control of the ICC a decade ago has been a board chairman or president: Jagmohan Dalmiya of India, Malcolm Gray of Australia and the present Percy Sonn of South Africa. In theory anybody can be nominated but, as experience shows that the candidates have been strictly limited to board chairmen, it is disingenuous to claim the process is "fair".

If it were "fair and transparent", and effective, where are the convincing candidates? Where are the candidates who have played cricket to any significant level before? Where are the great and good who have had a passion for the game? If the ICC had any interest in finding "the most suitable candidate", its shortlist would have included names of people who had not been board chairmen. For example, to pluck two Australians out of the hat, the former captain and current Cricket Australia board member Mark Taylor; or Rod Eddington, the former head of British Airways who played a bit of first-class cricket for Oxford University and grade cricket in Australia.

The organisation of the ICC would be fine if the body was a suburban bowls club. The people who rise to the top of it are lifelong committeemen who know how to shake hands, dress smartly and attend meetings. The ICC is giving the impression that its organisation needs nothing more than a bit of fine-tuning and a steady hand on the tiller, whereas it needs nothing less than stripping out and starting all over again.

Don't forget, the ICC is the organisation which gave us super-subs. I mean, how crass was it to overturn the basic principle of cricket as an 11-a-side game without playing even one trial match first? The body is doing commendably well in spreading the game worldwide, and in the World Cup we will soon see whether standards in Canada, Bermuda and Netherlands (where Lefebvre has been doing sterling work) have significantly risen, to justify the expensive investment in their future. ICC neutral umpires have taken the steam and racist accusations out of the game, which is again commendable.

But the ICC has also presided over some pretty unsavoury developments, like allowing Zimbabwe back into Test cricket again from November. I approve of its 15-degree elbow extension regulation to govern throwing but lament its failure to scrutinise every doosra. Recent World Cups have not been the spectacle they should have been, although the structure of the next one is much improved, while the Champions Trophy has always been tedious.

It does not matter who the next president of the ICC is under its present constitution because he will not be able to do much. Only when it is changed so that the head of the world game is chosen on merit, not on the basis of Buggins' turn, will standards increase all round - and then he needs to be given hands-on, day-to-day power. The present body wants quantity and the maximum amount of money, whereas the objective should be the highest quality of cricket all round - and some money.

Within the given parameters Morgan seems the better candidate, whereas Pawar is a lifelong politician. Morgan has always been fair and listened to players. His method is quiet persuasion to do what is practicable. The fact that he was re-elected unopposed as ECB chairman at the age of 68 emphasises the paucity of high-quality administrators within the ECB, which replicates many of the faults of the ICC. But he has, quietly and persuasively, refined the ECB to make it smaller and less cumbersome.

Only a crisis, normally, brings about a radical overhaul of organisations and cricket needs one. It will not be a financial crisis, after the new broadcasting rights deal has proved even more lucrative than the last, so it will have to be some kind of moral crisis. Until then the game will potter along, getting by, instead of achieving the highest standards, starting at the top.