The irony of Howard's nomination

Watching the John Howard ICC fiasco from a neutral distance, one cannot help but marvel at the beautiful irony of it all. From the moment his nomination was canvassed a few months ago, it was almost inevitable that this was unlikely to be an election without controversy; nothing about Howard, overtly political and divisive figure that he is, love him, hate him, or in my case, utterly indifferent to him, was likely to result in a smooth succession to the ICC throne.

The ensuing debate in Australia has been even more ironic. Those in the pro-Howard camp have cried foul about the way in which his nomination has been derailed, bemoaning the fact that no valid reasons have been proffered, claiming some sort of national insult, even going so far as to claim hurt on behalf of our NZ cousins. As if the sensitivities of our neighbours across the Tasman have always been something we have keenly sympathised with! More irony.

The anti-Howard brigade have brought up his past, replete with references to past policies and personal views that he espoused when he was still a mere politician. They counter-accusations of a subcontinental power bloc against Howard by reminding the ‘old powers’ that they ran the game for nigh on a century and it is only fitting that the new economic powerhouses now control the sport. It is a valid enough argument but can we please then dispense with any notions of good governance, best candidate, cricket's greater good etc and just accept that this is about who holds the balance of power. No shame in that - it's just a fact of life in the corporate jungle.

Howard himself, canny political beast that he is, must surely understand this better than anyone else. He must know that this entire affair has very little to do with what is best for cricket but is purely about boardroom games played by powerful men with self-important agenda. To the average cricket-fan, the real differences are made by the likes of committees comprising Michel Holding, Michael Atherton, Mark Taylor et al – decent men who understand the game intimately and try to legislate changes that actually change the game for the better. This boardroom stoush is more about deciding which person presides over the regime that decides on billion dollar TV rights, World Cup bids and which committee men (and I presume it is mostly 'men') will sample the delights of the next corporate box. The ICC’s travel department are kept busy enough with booking first-class flights and six-star hotels without having to unduly trouble themselves with mere trifling on-field matters.

Of course this is nothing more than a political fight. Howard understands that. You win some, you lose some. Just be patient and wait for the next gravy train. NZ, gracious loser in the initial battle, swallowed their disappointment after losing the bitter nomination battle between Howard and Sir John Anderson and are now playing the game like grown-ups. Yes, they got rolled by the Howard Team in the pre-selection but that’s history now. They have since backed Howard’s nomination but politics being politics, they themselves got rolled at the next stage of the political process. That's life. That's irony. Some would say...that's justice!

Surely Howard and his backers always knew this was likely to happen. Since when did the opposition ever have an obligation to telegraph their punches, provide valid reasons or keep pre-election promises? Howard himself carved out a great career doing just that. That’s politics. It’s not about right or wrong – life at the top cannot afford such ethical luxuries – this is about expediency, power and winning. This time, he's rolled the dice and lost but he's a hardened old warrior who'll move on to his next project soon. Perhaps a diplomatic posting in Antigua will still give him enough scope to watch a bit of cricket in comfort.

We’ve seen it just last week in Australian politics, on the opposite side to Howard’s former team. Kevin Rudd, supposedly the most popular PM in decades, could not even get through one term in office before he was rolled by his own deputies (one can hardly call them 'mates'). Shakespeare coined the famous “et tu Brute” to reflect the reality of all political battles, regardless of whether it applies to wars, famines, WMD’s or ICC elections. Deep down, why would Howard and Cricket Australia be so surprised by last week’s result? Surely they must have counted their numbers, kept an eye out for knives in the back and realised that it was no sure thing? NZ Cricket could have told them how it felt!

All this talk about needing valid reasons for Howard’s rejection and national insults and due process not being followed; that's just for the benefit of us cricket fans who honestly don’t really understand or care what happens in those ivory towers in Dubai. The reality is that new alliances will be formed, hatchets will be retrieved from shoulder blades and buried in Dubai's desert sands. There will be a few ruffled egos and talk of looking for scapegoats but the post-mortems won’t dare look too deep. No WMDs will be found here either!

My seven year-old son just walked into my office, read this essay over my shoulder and promptly asked me why politicians are the only people in society with the title of ‘Honourable’. Now that's irony!