Lost amidst the hoopla of the National League Representatives (NLR) for the abolition of the T&T Cricket Board (TTCB) leadership conventions (election of officers) in favour of a one-club, one-vote system, is the fact that these proposals may not be the voice of the majority.
The NLR purports to represent the national cricketing fraternity and its stakeholders yet has not made known the genesis of these proposed amendments. One has to question whether this coterie has the interest of cricket at heart.
Was there a widespread, advertised consultation with all relevant stakeholders and the national community? If so, where and when did these consultations take place? Can a list of all the clubs and other attendees be made public?
The argument to go to direct voting because it is more inclusive is spurious. To compare it with the one-man, one-vote system is just as simplistic. This is not a political party where anyone with ten dollars can buy membership to vote, oblivious of the issues and personalities involved.
TTCB conventions are a good way to generate interest at a time when so many Trinbagonians are apathetic about our national sporting organisations.
Being elected a delegate and attending a leadership convention is a good reward and it allows one to play an active role in the arm-twisting and negotiations that take place behind the scenes.
Leadership conventions are a good way to highlight not only those who have a realistic chance of being elected, but of showcasing those not-yet-ready-for prime time. All of this will be lost if the TTCB moves to direct voting.
Proponents of the present system further argue that it contributes to the political stability of the sport by encouraging a two party system.
A direct popular election of the President would likely have the opposite effect. For in direct popular elections, there would be every incentive for a multitude of candidates to reify genuine and abstract philosophies in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president.
The result of a direct popular vote then would likely be a frayed and unsuitable system characterised by a number of forces and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next.
The present convention/delegate system—although not perfect—has performed its function since inception by ensuring that the president of the TTCB has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country and amongst stakeholders to enable him to govern effectively.
Indeed there has been four changes in presidents in recent times.
Proposals to abolish the present system, though frequently advocated, have failed largely because the alternative appears more problematic than what now exists.
Now, the other side.
The one-club, one-vote system would be ideal but cannot be implemented or adopted overnight. The mere definition of a “club” and a “team” creates confusion and ambiguity. If one is to be honest, there are few clubs in this country. A club is definitely not a pick-up side that plays cricket from January to June then dissipates like a passing shower on a hot sunny day.
A club must have structure, stability, longevity and most importantly, financial accountability. It must have processes and procedures for dealing with issues. It must be governed by set rules and regulations. It must be constitutionally sound. A constitution defines all of the preceding a whole lot more. An organisation without a constitution is a ticking time bomb, a river busting its banks, chaos!
Before any election using the one-man, one-vote system can be ratified and adopted there must first be the evidence that there are clubs worthy of this privilege. There has to be a common constitution governing all clubs participating in competitions under the TTCB.
If clubs are to truly participate in the day to day affairs of the TTCB then there has to be commonality in the operations of all such entities. The parent organisation (TTCB) has to be able to exercise some form of oversight where it pertains to the processes adopted by these clubs in electing their officers and their general functioning.
The TTCB must initiate widespread consultation with the primary purpose of developing a constitution that will truly encompass all clubs and other relevant stakeholders. It must be a document for all by all. Once there is uniformity and conformity there will be a level playing field and the move towards the one-club, one-vote system can be implement.
Mind you, this is no easy task. Within a constitution are a multitude of issues. Would clubs be willing to surrender their perceived and cherished independence and ideals to function within this new constitutional framework?
The challenges will be boundless. The doubts and apprehensions will be never ending. It has to be a bottom up approach. Change has to come, but it must start with revamping, redefining, and strengthening the existing club structure. Clubs cannot advocate for change when they themselves are structurally impotent. Making a few amendments at the top to satisfy selfish motives is tantamount to putting plasters on sores.
If there is genuine concern for the direction of cricket in T&T then all parties should come together and establish a working agenda for constitutional reform. It is foolhardy to use the media to vilify and desecrate the organisation you hope one day to lead. Attempting to scare off sponsors will only serve to retard whatever progress is being made.
Voting is a right and a privilege but must be controlled and monitored within a common constitutional framework.
Consultation, constitution, implementation.
Reynold Sewdass,
Barrackpore,
Former Secretary, South Zonal Cricket Council