Every time I hear the PCB’s latest explanation on the repudiation of a decision that had looked senseless in the first place, the more I empathise with Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.’ For all of us with an understanding of management and decision-making process, the level of senility in the ‘institution’ at Gaddafi Stadium is unprecedented.

I have labelled the PCB under Ejaz Butt as Permanently Confused Board; the post-Australian tour inquiry committee as FARCE (Friends, Associates and Relatives Clearing Ejaz), Butt’s face as the more recognisable U-Turn traffic sign (a diagonal line across his face where not allowed), and the best possible personification of room temperature IQ.

He has had verbal spats with the minister of sports, Senate and National Assembly sports committee members, and former cricket legends like Javed Miandad, Aamer Sohail and Abdul Qadir. That he is still there and openly patronises his ageing relatives and close friends with lucrative jobs and tour management deals shows the protection Butt enjoys.

If a poll was to be taken of a random 100 people in the country, 99 per cent of the sample would say that he should have been fired much earlier. Make that 100 per cent if the hundreth person polled is not Butt himself.

Yet, ironically Butt has the opportunity to become an instant hero among all his detractors by casting a vote against the embattled candidate vying for the post of ICC president, John Howard who was nominated by Australia and New Zealand. Butt’s vote against the former Australian prime minister will eliminate Howard from the running as Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sri Lanka have already objected to his nomination. Howard needs seven votes out of 10 to be elected. India have already announced their support for the process that has nominated the former Australian premier, which implies they are likely to accept Howard (India have come too far with Australia, politically and cricket-wise to disagree). Bangladesh and West Indies are unlikely to go against the Australia-India-England nexus. This leaves Pakistan.

Only Butt can get confused with the mathematics and think his vote won’t make a difference. To the rest of us, right now, he is the most powerful man in the world of cricket.

According to Cricinfo sources, however, he may have already lost that opportunity and passed on the buck to the government, which means the vote is as good as ‘aye’, though it will of course come to nothing in terms of future favours expected by Pakistan. Read ‘Friends of Pakistan’ announced by the president himself.

This matter should not have been delegated upward since it has nothing to do with global politics. But knowing how fickle Butt is, he will suddenly announce his vote in favour of Howard, then go on to clarify he was misquoted on live TV as pressure mounts against him.

If the Pakistan government does what I think it will do, will Butt do the unthinkable and take this chance to renege on the government? If he does, he will magically redeem himself in the eyes of Pakistani cricket fans who feel Australia has let them down the most in their quest for playing international cricket at home.

The Australians have not played a match in Pakistan for over 12 years and have often led the charge against touring Pakistan. Their players have, nevertheless, played in India as bombs explode and/or are diffused next to stadium walls.

Howard, Australia’s prime minister from 1996-2007, wants to stand for a position which in actuality seeks various governments' cooperation to keep global politics out of cricket. But with Howard, it’s the opposite. He publicly opposed the Australian team from playing in Zimbabwe because of President Robert Mugabe’s regime of terror in the country. Mugabe is known for his racist policies against the white minority in Zimbabwe and his critics blame him for the country's economic downfall. As prime minister, Howard called Sri Lankan bowler and highest wicket-taker Muttiah Muralitharan, a ‘chucker’. This certainly doesn’t sound like a man who follows protocol or rules of engagement, essential for the president of a global sporting body. Neither does he abstain from giving judgments on issues where he is not professionally qualified to do so.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, in 2002 Howard snubbed President Pervez Musharraf’s assurance of VVIP level security and disallowed Australia’s cricket team to tour Pakistan. But during the World Cup in 2003, when Australia needed every point to ensure a position in the semi finals, he did not enforce the similar authority. Instead, Australia travelled to Zimbabwe to play their group game despite underlying threats to their lives.

Howard was the architect of the 1998 legislation that targeted Aborigines by taking away their common-law land rights granted to them by the high court. During his re-election he was accused by the Australians for letting the racist genie out of the bottle, especially after his handling of The Tampa Affair.

Howard is not consistent in his beliefs and is in fact, opportunistic. The governing body of the ICC needs to be impartial and must be able to keep global politics out of sports. The ICC president should be able to steer cricket towards unifying the sport and its players, instead of creating a divide.

Butt is the one person who can make Australia and New Zealand replace Howard with another candidate. He must know that even New Zealanders are not happy with the nomination.

What I want to know is why would a prime minister of Howard’s stature be willing to become the president of the ICC? Should he not be looking for a more senior position at the World Bank or the UN? Is there no former cricketer or administrator in Australia, the pioneers of cricket management and innovation, who could be nominated? What about Sir Allan Border, Bob Simpson or even Creagh O’Conner who was chairman Cricket Australia up to 2007? Why can’t they allow Sir John Anderson from New Zealand (former Test cricketer and New Zealand head of cricket) to step up from the region just the way Malcolm Gray had been president in 2003?

What’s the desperation, mate?

I hate to say it but it would take someone like Howard to give shape to what has been doing the rounds for the past couple of years; a split between the haves and have-nots. No one is more experienced at this than the former Australian PM to convince the three wealthier cricket countries India, Australia and England (with New Zealand thrown in for good measure) to play each other more often – maybe even a quadrangular.

Look at the demographics of the IPL and you will understand my case. If anyone can push through something as dramatic as creating a rift between cricketing nations, then it is the wily Howard. If anyone can stop this from happening, it is the blundering Butt.

Destiny surely has a sense of humour.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.