10-6 - The ideological deadlock

A lot of things in the entire process has been a systemic chaos, initiated just after Shashank Manohar left the ICC Chairman role, not seeing a third and final term, earlier this year. Manohar’s regime might have become a story in conjectures for ego fights and moving away from the established organisations but the school of thought endured. A classic politicking, if you'd like to see it that way.

Because, at its heart, this election is not only a battle between two people, leveraging for the same position. This, unlike the previous ICC elections, is actually a battle of two totally different thought-processes, powered by two sections of international cricket’s meritocracy. Barclay has the backing from India, Australia and England - three countries whose bilateral arrangements earn them more money than any ICC funding ever can - and on the other hand, sits Imran Khawaja. The latter’s rise from Singapore cricket representative to the interim chair position at the ICC is built on the advocacy for smaller nations which makes him a hero for the goliaths and a villain among the standing big boys.

On top of those complexities, the ICC have devised a rather complicated voting process that might have a huge bearing on the way the next chairman takes the role. There would be three rounds of secret ballot voting where one needs to have a two-third majority to own the position. However, after first round of process that saw 12 Full Members, three directors representing the Associates and the independent woman director Indra Nooyi cast their votes, the lock was hinged at 10-6 in favour of Barclay. However, the tragic ICC rule states that if Barclay doesn’t up his vote in the third round of voting, then he will have to make way for Khawaja to be the chairman till further mentioned. Basically, Khawaja needs to take the deadlock to win the role. In simpler terms, lesser votes take the cake.

It is in this position Khwaja’s accent needs to be scrutinised. The Times of India reported last month that Khawaja is no more the representative from Singapore with another source reporting that Mozambique supported Khawaja to hold onto the ICC director role which the ICC have been mum about for the longest time. If there are any ulterior motives or a good motive to combat India’s power hierarchy, could this not be done in a fairer way? Afterall, transparency is something that the ICC has worn as a badge of honour, so an answer for the larger interest of the game should have been due.