Asks Colin Stuart
The issues surrounding West Indies cricket seem to stem from the comprehension of its value and meaning by the main actors (those in structural authority) and the players.
It is this value and meaning that determines the conduct of these main actors, those with the responsibility to preserve one of “our” most valuable assets – West Indies Cricket.
In observation, I find the current dilemma disgusting and humiliating and the attitude of the two main players; West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) president Dr. Julian Hunte and West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA) president Dinanath Ramnarine very immature and insensitive. Certainly, these two individuals should have been able to exhibit effective leadership qualities which would have enabled them to arrive at a compromise prior to the just-concluded Bangladesh cricket tour of the West Indies.
Instead, the West Indian people had to suffer the grave humiliation of seeing their side beaten by a team from Bangladesh; a team ranked below them on the ICC rankings. That defeat should be especially galling. It is not that West Indians can’t stand losing to Bangladesh but that defeat should not be attributed to the standoff between authoritative figures who should be putting the interest of West Indies Cricket as their primary and utmost goal.
If Hunte and Ramnarine are caught up in personality clashes perpetuating egoistical needs, then that may be a cause for concern and discontent by the West Indian people. When one assumes key positions of authority in a structural enterprise, the development and preservation of the goods or services in question (in this case West Indies Cricket) is of primary importance. Therefore, when challenges arise it is critical for leaders to adapt and negotiate towards attaining positive change, not direct or dictate a part that depletes or destroy the specified product.
I believe that WIPA’S primary responsibility should be to initiate change in a manner that keeps the represented players employed, that is on the field. Such a situation can arise from compromise where some players needs may not be met but the game will be developed and preserved. Obviously, WIPA is an important entity, there should be a body representing the players but the strategies employed towards the initiation of change are even more critical and therefore must be effective.
On the other hand, as I see it the WICB has a responsibility to negotiate presented challenges in a manner that preserves our “quality product,” West Indies cricket. Such a product can only be represented by our best team. Any adaptation or solution that is geared at utilizing new ingredients, or in this case new players, is experimental and superficial and can therefore only be classified as a “temporary fix.” It must be acknowledged that challenges are part and parcel of life and structural systems. To completely remove challenges those in authority would have to put rigid systems in place. Should the WICB resort to such a tactic they are likely to assume a dictatorship approach, an attribute that does not imply democracy. Such an approach will be clearly unacceptable, thus there is a need for WIPA.
Hence, the preservation of West Indies Cricket lies in the ability of those in authority positions to effectively negotiate presented challenges and adapt and re-negotiate as special situations and circumstances develop from time to time. Thus, it is found that when one occupies positions of authority within organisations the focus should not be on the personalities but on their ability to influence change consistent with the organisation’s needs and goals, otherwise termed “positive change,” not just any change.
Here it is important to mention Ralf Dahrendorf, a contemporary conflict theorist who identified various authority roles within society. In doing so, he was critical of those who focused on the psychological or behavioural characteristics of the individuals who occupy such authority positions. Dahrendorf posited that a person in authority in one setting does not necessarily hold a position of authority in another setting. These persons dominate because of the expectations of those around them, not because of their own psychological characteristics. He opined that these expectations like authority are attached to positions not people.
Thanks to Dahrendorf, one can begin to shift their attention away from personalities and begin to better understand the need for persons in positions like those occupied by Hunte and Ramnarine to utilize their authority to create effective change, not deplete the main product that they should be protecting and developing.
What I find even more depressing is that the mediation process arranged by Caricom Chairman, President Bharrat Jagdeo and headed by the influential figure of Sir Shridath Ramphal has to date, heeded undesirable results.
One would hope that Hunte and Ramnarine would get it right. West Indians can ill afford to see the destruction of a culture that millions of West Indians have built and tried to maintain.
Should the West Indies Cricket team be defeated, let us go down fighting with our best team. Currently, whether our best team includes some of the new guys we have seen from the just concluded tournament, that decisions lies in the trust of the West Indian selectors; with the right commitment from these players West Indians will be proud that we have tried our best, whether we win or lose.
It must be noted that West Indies Cricket is not only about the WICB, the WIPA and the players but about the West Indian people. Here consideration of our history becomes important; a history that encompasses slavery, indentured labour, and the lifestyles of the native Amerindians, where the inhabitants in this region were considered one people.
West Indian cricket is not in any way the sole means but can be considered very significant in terms of its contribution to our people being perceived as a people of worth, substance and excellence. The great West Indian players of yesteryear have made sterling contributions to West Indies cricket, demonstrating the ability and strong character of the West Indians. What these great players did was to bring a sort of respect to the West Indian people and while many of them may not have derived great financial benefits, they gained status, and gave the West Indian people status, an identity comparable to no other. It is from this platform that many of the recent players have relied on to reap great financial rewards. Our Gayles, Bravos, Sarwans and Chanderpauls would most likely be other professionals.
As regard the “opted out” players I wonder whether their allegiance centres only on players’ compensation and treatment. Or does it involve such compensation and treatment and more importantly their loyalty to the West Indian people inclusive of future Gayles, Bravos, Sarwans and Chanderpauls. Should it be part of their responsibility to maintain the proud history and culture of the West Indian people, to do like the legends before their time and set a platform for future cricketers?
Is it fair that an approach be taken that would divide and ultimately destroy West Indies cricket, our culture or history, an approach that would rob future players of being professional West Indian cricketers? A player’s position in life may all be dependent on their other capabilities and special situations and circumstances. Surely, a self-centred approach cannot be the best form of intervention that surrounds a valuable asset such as our West Indian cricket, our culture, or identity?
I marvel at the thought processes of some, especially those who suggest a division and ultimate abandonment of West Indies cricket. In my opinion, such suggestions are ludicrous and totally unacceptable. When decisions are made about West Indies cricket by those who hold authority positions, consideration must be given to the West Indian public. West Indian cricket means a lot to the West Indian people, it’s our identity, our culture.
Problems such as the signing of contracts, timely and retroactive payments, property rights and other issues must all be addressed. The main actors must first identify, acknowledge and first deal with the real issues which, I believe lie in the value the sport has to the main actors. Unless this area can be effectively challenged then there will be no solution. The issues can only be effectively addressed when the WICB, WIPA and the players examine what the value and meaning of West Indies cricket is to them. It is this position that will determine whether they will compromise.
(Colin Stuart is a former West Indies fast bowler. He also served as one of the West Indies Cricket Board’s Territorial Development Officers)
