By Rashid Latif   -  Every general election brings a wave of change in Pakistan and due to highly politicised entity, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) can’t stay firm either.

In the past on most occasions, the head of the PCB had gone with the outgoing government. This time around as well, it’s expected that the prime minister in waiting, Imran Khan, would install his own team in the PCB and Najam Sethi along with his close aides had to walk out. Will this be the right approach? Not at all, in my opinion.

People are proposing one name after the other but I firmly believe that replacing the PCB chairman would not work. In fact, this control of Prime Minister on the PCB affairs needs to be seized. This interference, in the name of patron-in-chief, is unfair, in my opinion. The cricketing matter should solely be looked after by the cricket board . Having said that, the composition at the cricket board should be fixed, in fact the process of election in the PCB, in true sense, is need of the hour.

Why should the patron-in-chief choose the head of the PCB, instead regional and departmental heads should be allowed to contest for the post of chairman. The election should be held in two phases. Firstly, the regional and departmental heads elect 10 of them as Board of Governors (BoG) and later, the BoG elects one amongst them as chairman. It will give level playing field to all those involved in cricketing affairs at the lower level.

The elected chairman should only run cricket affairs while the business side be looked after by a competent chief executive officer, appointed by the board of governors after a thorough review of credentials. For the betterment of the game, the constitution of the PCB needs a revamp as well. At the moment, the document is chairman centric and provides unlimited powers to the chairman. It has to be diluted and the jobs must be delegated smartly.

For the same purpose, I challenged the constitution of the PCB before the Sindh High Court in 2013 that the powers accorded to the PCB chairman were in violation of the norms of fair play and the method of appointing the chairman PCB was without any electoral process. As such, the Sindh High Court in its decision was pleased to record that I was correct in saying so as a Single Bench of the Islamabad High Court had also recorded the same in its judgment.

Thereafter, the PCB constitution was amended and an electoral process was inducted to elect the PCB chairman. The question remains that if history will repeat itself and the new premier will elect the new PCB chairman or will the electoral process provided in the constitution be followed in appointing the new chairman?

All in all, a complete revamp is need of the hour. Instead of focusing on the top, the bottom to top move will be a far better approach.