It is rather ironic that the Liberals have chosen to reheat the alleged links between Kevin Rudd and Brian Burke to assail the character of the PM. After much morning media theatre, Rudd's office released the full exchange. The worst one can say about it is that Rudd considered Burke's proposal for a dinner in his honour and then recanted on further reflection. This blog suspects that Rudd may have canvassed the idea of using Burke's influence among the Western Australian Labor party to turn members against Beazley. Beazley has spoken out strongly against Burke and hence those still aligned to Burke would naturally be less sympathetic to the former leader. Better judgment ultimately prevailed and Rudd cancelled the dinner. In contrast to former PM John Howard's dealings with the Exclusive Brethren and the government's general approach to such matters as the AWB affair, the degree of candour Rudd has demonstrated is quite extraordinary. Rudd is not, in his own words, 'Captain Perfect', but he does seem to acknowledge his mistakes and considers his actions before he behaves in a manner which may compromise his integrity.
Unfortunately, this blog has doubts the same words could be applied to his opposite number. Brendan Nelson was always going to be on the back foot in responding to Rudd's sorry speech. If he had demonstrated a tin ear by both apologising (thus alienating some in his party) and sounding churlish with his dirge of a sermon on Australia's history since white settlement (thus causing the indigenous viewers and their supporters considerable insult), he compounded this by his appalling misappropriation of the words of Faye Lyman. Ms Lyman is a Victorian woman whom Nelson claimed to be quoting in his speech.
The text of the speech includes this excerpt from Ms Lyman's story, credited as part of the Many Voices project at the National Library:
“Personally I don’t want people to say, ‘I’m sorry Faye’, I just want them to understand.
It was very hurtful to leave Dad. Oh it broke my heart. Dad said to me, ‘It’s hard for daddy and the authorities won’t let you stay with me in a tent on the riverbank. You’re a little girl and you need someone to look after you.’ I remember him telling us that, and I cried. I said, ‘No, but Dad, you look after us’ … But they kept telling us it wasn’t the right thing. I don’t want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they’ve done….You don’t belong in either world. I can’t explain it. It hurts so much.”
The words were followed in Dr Nelson's speech by the phrase 'there is no compensation fund. Nor should there be'. Ms Lyman now feels 'stolen all over again'. Not only had Nelson used her words without consulting her, he had implied her father had approved of her removal. Dr Nelson rang her to apologise, which Ms Lyman recounted as him saying 'I just wanted them to know your story', When Ms Lyman asked why did he not call her first, he could not answer.
Dr Nelson may have been attempting to bridge the gaping chasm between the progressive and ultra-conservative wings of his fracturing party. He may have been trying to bring some belated understanding to the feelings of indigenous people. However, by treating the speech as just another departmental research exercise, amiable to anonymous googling, he revealed a lack of grasp of moment and the sensibilities of the vulnerable. Whereas Rudd reconsidered meeting Burke once he realised it was the wrong thing to do, Nelson did not even think to contact Ms Lyman, let alone advise her that he would use her words in contravention of her own suffering. To use a person's words without permission is unwise, to use them out of context, and in such an emotionally charged situation, shows a fault of character and bad judgment.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Rest Ponting and change the dynamics
The Indian cricket team has done something remarkable. It has rendered Ricky Ponting irrelevant from the batting landscape. With the exception of his century in the Adelaide Test, Ponting has not registered a significant contribution in over two months, and the situation is starting to expose the weaknesses in the Australian team. Labouring under a back injury cannot be good for either his movement or his captaincy, and through the agency of Ishant Sharma and the ubiquitious Harbhajan Singh, India are exposing the lack of all-round contributors and defiant middle order batsmen. With Andrew Symonds hampered by his dubious ankle, threatening to become a problem of Flintoff-like proportions, the middle order is effectively carrying two less than fit players.
What Australia needs is new energy and to seize the initiative back from their subcontinental tormenters. Clarke's 20/20 captaincy was attacking and inspired and he showed a measure of responsibility sometimes lacking in his batting. He should be given the chance to match tactical wits with the all-out approach favoured by Mahendera Singh Dhoni, who seems to have channelled his batting aggression into his field placements. Resting Ponting would also allow the promotion of Victoria's prolific other Hussey, David. David Hussey is a hard hitting batsman and spinner who could compensate for Symonds' restricted state. It would certainly take the pressure off Ponting whom Sharma and his spinning mate are causing nightmares.
What Australia needs is new energy and to seize the initiative back from their subcontinental tormenters. Clarke's 20/20 captaincy was attacking and inspired and he showed a measure of responsibility sometimes lacking in his batting. He should be given the chance to match tactical wits with the all-out approach favoured by Mahendera Singh Dhoni, who seems to have channelled his batting aggression into his field placements. Resting Ponting would also allow the promotion of Victoria's prolific other Hussey, David. David Hussey is a hard hitting batsman and spinner who could compensate for Symonds' restricted state. It would certainly take the pressure off Ponting whom Sharma and his spinning mate are causing nightmares.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Why Hillary must get a tap on the shoulder
The Democratic race has produced an extraordinary phenomenon. It effectively has two front runners in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both splitting roughly equal portions of the vote. Aided by the proportional distribution of most of the delegates, neither candidate has made a decisive break. The Republicans have helped too, by closing many of their primaries to independent voters. These independents largely throw in their lot to the inclusive candidacy of Obama.
Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.
On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.
Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.
Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.
Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.
On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.
Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.
Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Rudd's 2020 vision highlights his approach
Kevin Rudd's proposed Australia 2020 Summit has variously been described as a great innovation, yet another glorified talk fest and the ultimate in PR flummery. Which description one favours is as much about one's own personal prejudices as the exercise itself. The clear message from Rudd's symposium on the Australian condition is that unlike his predecessor, the new PM is willing to at least listen to alternative ideas and engage in reasoned debate.
John Howard's prime ministerial tenure was marked with a determined effort to remake Australia in his own image. The 'white picket fence' became a metaphor for the restoration of an Anglo-dominant culture where immigrants from Asian backgrounds strove to fit into that dominant culture. Consequently, universalist notions such as human rights, multiculturalism and indigenous self-determination were dismissed and a conservative bulwark of commentators cultivated to conduct a culture war with so-called 'elites'. The goal was to support an existing world view rather than seek new ideas and perspectives. Howard was a man with a legalistic grasp of language, aiming to control every ounce of meaning his words carried. His allies had a ready supply of labels to dismiss arguments contrary to their common project.
Kevin Rudd's background and general manner both in opposition and on the Treasury benches reveal a totally different approach. While Howard's view saw the world as malleable to his own design, Rudd's aim is to solve the problems that world presents. It is a utilitarian vision, with the common good firmly in the centre. Rudd's philosophical background is not the Methodist preacher or the Republican push-poller, but the Chinese cultural tradition. Rudd is known in China as Lu Kewen, 'the hard-working and enduring one'. As his many colleagues seem to frequently anonymously admit to newspaper columnists, these traits describe him aptly. Another principle advocated since the days of Confucius is to listen to elders and to value intelligence. Rudd's 2020 vision exemplifies such a belief that people of intelligence beyond the party machinery and political apparatchiks have some value to add to our major policy challenges.
It is notable that most of the criticism for Rudd's plan comes from the old Howard support group. The idea that strong policy outcomes could come other than through the echo chamber of the Parliament, a Parliament which Howard essentially exercised an iron grip over, is an affront to these stagers. Rudd has promised to consider suggestions he considers to have merit, while offering reasoned explanations for rejecting alternative options. Such a return to a civilised political debate is a refreshing change from the Keating - Howard years of polarisation and dismissal.
John Howard's prime ministerial tenure was marked with a determined effort to remake Australia in his own image. The 'white picket fence' became a metaphor for the restoration of an Anglo-dominant culture where immigrants from Asian backgrounds strove to fit into that dominant culture. Consequently, universalist notions such as human rights, multiculturalism and indigenous self-determination were dismissed and a conservative bulwark of commentators cultivated to conduct a culture war with so-called 'elites'. The goal was to support an existing world view rather than seek new ideas and perspectives. Howard was a man with a legalistic grasp of language, aiming to control every ounce of meaning his words carried. His allies had a ready supply of labels to dismiss arguments contrary to their common project.
Kevin Rudd's background and general manner both in opposition and on the Treasury benches reveal a totally different approach. While Howard's view saw the world as malleable to his own design, Rudd's aim is to solve the problems that world presents. It is a utilitarian vision, with the common good firmly in the centre. Rudd's philosophical background is not the Methodist preacher or the Republican push-poller, but the Chinese cultural tradition. Rudd is known in China as Lu Kewen, 'the hard-working and enduring one'. As his many colleagues seem to frequently anonymously admit to newspaper columnists, these traits describe him aptly. Another principle advocated since the days of Confucius is to listen to elders and to value intelligence. Rudd's 2020 vision exemplifies such a belief that people of intelligence beyond the party machinery and political apparatchiks have some value to add to our major policy challenges.
It is notable that most of the criticism for Rudd's plan comes from the old Howard support group. The idea that strong policy outcomes could come other than through the echo chamber of the Parliament, a Parliament which Howard essentially exercised an iron grip over, is an affront to these stagers. Rudd has promised to consider suggestions he considers to have merit, while offering reasoned explanations for rejecting alternative options. Such a return to a civilised political debate is a refreshing change from the Keating - Howard years of polarisation and dismissal.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Warning! Emissions trading bogeyman approaching
The casual reader of yesterday's Australian might be alarmed to see that power costs are set to double under an emissions trading scheme. This is reminiscent of the same logic that the McCain - Lieberman energy bill co-sponsored by the perennial Republican candidate is set to cost American consumers several trillion dollars.
The statement comes from the National Generators Forum prognosticating that a global carbon price of $80 per ton would effectively double the Australian retail electricity price. It is unclear whether this is Australian or US dollars, given that global estimates are usually given in the latter. That figure is at the upper end of predictions by European banks, estimating a price of $60-80 per ton. Interestingly, an EU Impact Summary Working Document noted that cuts of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 would necessitate a carbon price of $60 per ton - in 2020. The price would not reach $80 until 2025, even allowing for the kind of deep cuts even the climate change champion Rudd will not counternance. By the way, those figures are in Australian dollars, based on the current exchange rate to the Euro.
In other words, even if Rudd signed up for a 50% global reduction on GHGs by 2030, the electricity price is not going to double until 2025. Given I would wager my electricity bill would be at least twice its face value as compared to 1991, this increase may well have been the natural course of utility price inflation. Rudd's target is for a total cut of 60% by 2050, which means he is unlikely to sign up, and nor is anyone else, to anything like this level of price increase. Further, markets are generally skeptical that these projections will prove correct and that energy improvements and efficiency increases will mean the market sets an ultimate lower price.
The headline of the article is thus little more than an idle speculation based on a straw-man worst case scenario. By making it the headline, a subeditor has promoted it to the status of fact. Expect to see a lot more of this given slow-to-move conservatives' have the perverse incentive to stir up community suspicion and discontent for short-term electoral gain.
The statement comes from the National Generators Forum prognosticating that a global carbon price of $80 per ton would effectively double the Australian retail electricity price. It is unclear whether this is Australian or US dollars, given that global estimates are usually given in the latter. That figure is at the upper end of predictions by European banks, estimating a price of $60-80 per ton. Interestingly, an EU Impact Summary Working Document noted that cuts of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 would necessitate a carbon price of $60 per ton - in 2020. The price would not reach $80 until 2025, even allowing for the kind of deep cuts even the climate change champion Rudd will not counternance. By the way, those figures are in Australian dollars, based on the current exchange rate to the Euro.
In other words, even if Rudd signed up for a 50% global reduction on GHGs by 2030, the electricity price is not going to double until 2025. Given I would wager my electricity bill would be at least twice its face value as compared to 1991, this increase may well have been the natural course of utility price inflation. Rudd's target is for a total cut of 60% by 2050, which means he is unlikely to sign up, and nor is anyone else, to anything like this level of price increase. Further, markets are generally skeptical that these projections will prove correct and that energy improvements and efficiency increases will mean the market sets an ultimate lower price.
The headline of the article is thus little more than an idle speculation based on a straw-man worst case scenario. By making it the headline, a subeditor has promoted it to the status of fact. Expect to see a lot more of this given slow-to-move conservatives' have the perverse incentive to stir up community suspicion and discontent for short-term electoral gain.
Win California, win the Presidency?
California is perhaps the one last key contest of the primary season. Merged into the hyperbolically renamed 'super duper Tuesday', where twenty-two states pledge their delegates, it remains a pivotal state in determining the outcome of the race, particularly on the Democratic side.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.
Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.
McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.
Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.
Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.
McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.
Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Professional game, unprofessional behaviour
The aftermath of the Harbhajan Singh- Andrew Symonds clash continues to roll on. Now it has experienced even vice-regal and prime ministerial intervention, with both those leaders calling for more grace in accepting the umpire's decision and treating fellow players as human beings. Some of this talk of grace and courtesy has the air of a halycon day which never actually happened. Be that as it may, the current crop of Australian cricketers, who for some time appeared to get a very lenient deal from umpires for misconduct on-field, has actively employed 'mental disintegration' as a key tactic. The line between valid remarks and outright sledging and bullying is very thin and it is easy to see young players forgetting it altogether.
The spectacle of several players from both Australia and India seated at the bar table of an Adelaide Federal Court room must surely be a wake-up call for the game. Clearly something was amiss, a perception heightened by the fact not one player was in shirt and tie - most members of the public would risk ejection from a court room in such attire and few witnesses would be so lax as to turn up in a tracksuit as both Ricky Ponting and Harbhajan appeared to do. However, perhaps the lack of respect for the surroundings was fitting given the appaling behaviour of the ICC and the BCCI, which seem to veer from one mindless crisis to the next.
The ICC has clearly been caught off-guard. Its umpiring panel is now run in a semi-professional manner, but the referees administering code of conduct infringements are different shades of amateur. No other sport would conduct legalistic tribunal hearings with an official with no legal training, as Mike Proctor, referee at the Sydney Test, admitted. For some reason, the ICC's most experienced referee, Ranjan Madugalle, was not available to referee the series initially. Given the tension expected following the Symonds controversy in India, one would have thought the ICC may have pre-empted trouble.
The prosecution of the case against Harbhajan has betrayed a lack of process and understanding. First, the evidence was not viewed sufficiently to establish the correct charge. Harbhajan was ultimately fined for abusive language, a Level 2 offence, but he was originally convicted of racial vilification, a Level 3 offence carrying a three match ban. Second, Proctor dismissed the contrary testimony of Sachin Tendulkar, a strange move in the absence of objective evidence. Then, having set up a formal appeal tribunal under former NZ High Court Justice Hansen, the ICC made one final blunder to discredit its own competency. It somehow failed to provide Justice Hansen with Harbhajan's disciplinary record. Hansen then mitigated the punishment based on the evidence before him, rather than all the facts that should have been taken into account at sentencing.
The net result of this is that ICC incompetence has fuelled Indian hysteria at perceived injustice and caused the BCCI to throw its considerable financial weight around with various threats about cancelling the tour. The apparent approval of the Sri Lankan board does not help matters.
This latest episode merely confirms the fact that the ICC has a woeful record in handling major issues on the global cricketing stage. The World Cup in the West Indies scheduled games in the Caribbean and then told the crowd to behave like it was at Lords. The final ended in farce, with Sri Lanka batting out the overs in the dark. That finale has proven an apt metaphor for the crisis that followed. The fact that the ICC still allows Zimbabwe to compete, and only dropped them from Test cricket when it became manifestly clear its team could not compete, shows a total lack of ethics and basic understanding of humanity beyond the corporate dollar and regional politics. If the BCCI wants to build bridges with the other unions in England, Australia and New Zealand, it would be best served working for the complete suspension of Zimbabwe until its cricket organisation returns to normality. At present, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is an adjunct of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, and hence allowing it to play is recognition of Mugabe's government.
All the cricket nations need to discover a spirited way to compete and cooperate, that encourages fair play and tolerance. They need to work together to balance spreading the game with commercialism, so that we marvel at the feats of players and not make hysterical appeals to nationalist sentiment.
The spectacle of several players from both Australia and India seated at the bar table of an Adelaide Federal Court room must surely be a wake-up call for the game. Clearly something was amiss, a perception heightened by the fact not one player was in shirt and tie - most members of the public would risk ejection from a court room in such attire and few witnesses would be so lax as to turn up in a tracksuit as both Ricky Ponting and Harbhajan appeared to do. However, perhaps the lack of respect for the surroundings was fitting given the appaling behaviour of the ICC and the BCCI, which seem to veer from one mindless crisis to the next.
The ICC has clearly been caught off-guard. Its umpiring panel is now run in a semi-professional manner, but the referees administering code of conduct infringements are different shades of amateur. No other sport would conduct legalistic tribunal hearings with an official with no legal training, as Mike Proctor, referee at the Sydney Test, admitted. For some reason, the ICC's most experienced referee, Ranjan Madugalle, was not available to referee the series initially. Given the tension expected following the Symonds controversy in India, one would have thought the ICC may have pre-empted trouble.
The prosecution of the case against Harbhajan has betrayed a lack of process and understanding. First, the evidence was not viewed sufficiently to establish the correct charge. Harbhajan was ultimately fined for abusive language, a Level 2 offence, but he was originally convicted of racial vilification, a Level 3 offence carrying a three match ban. Second, Proctor dismissed the contrary testimony of Sachin Tendulkar, a strange move in the absence of objective evidence. Then, having set up a formal appeal tribunal under former NZ High Court Justice Hansen, the ICC made one final blunder to discredit its own competency. It somehow failed to provide Justice Hansen with Harbhajan's disciplinary record. Hansen then mitigated the punishment based on the evidence before him, rather than all the facts that should have been taken into account at sentencing.
The net result of this is that ICC incompetence has fuelled Indian hysteria at perceived injustice and caused the BCCI to throw its considerable financial weight around with various threats about cancelling the tour. The apparent approval of the Sri Lankan board does not help matters.
This latest episode merely confirms the fact that the ICC has a woeful record in handling major issues on the global cricketing stage. The World Cup in the West Indies scheduled games in the Caribbean and then told the crowd to behave like it was at Lords. The final ended in farce, with Sri Lanka batting out the overs in the dark. That finale has proven an apt metaphor for the crisis that followed. The fact that the ICC still allows Zimbabwe to compete, and only dropped them from Test cricket when it became manifestly clear its team could not compete, shows a total lack of ethics and basic understanding of humanity beyond the corporate dollar and regional politics. If the BCCI wants to build bridges with the other unions in England, Australia and New Zealand, it would be best served working for the complete suspension of Zimbabwe until its cricket organisation returns to normality. At present, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is an adjunct of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, and hence allowing it to play is recognition of Mugabe's government.
All the cricket nations need to discover a spirited way to compete and cooperate, that encourages fair play and tolerance. They need to work together to balance spreading the game with commercialism, so that we marvel at the feats of players and not make hysterical appeals to nationalist sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)