CRICKET journalists and academics are at odds in their interpretation of the current events taking place in West Indies cricket. Senior cricket journalists, academics are saying have not captured accurately the facts and principles. Academics have been silent in the press, though vocal in their circles.

I wear both hats, and indeed a third, as I have been invited onto the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) to develop the cricket academy and to participate in President Hunte’s Cricket Strategic Planning. My opinions are shaped from these perspectives.

The players’ strike needs to be seen in the context of the state of West Indian democracy. Cricketers have refused to represent their nation in the international arena on account of pay and terms.

This has enormous implication for the process of governance and the meaning of citizenship. Our political leaders should think about this very carefully. If a citizen is well paid and respected, and his call to service is approved by law and civic values, should he refuse to represent his nation?

What we are seeing here is a clash of the traditional values of national representation with the new ultra-individualism unleashed by economic globalisation.

The new ideology is citizen first and nation second; cash before country. West Indies has the most vulnerable cricket culture in the global arena because the West Indian nation as a political construct is weakest, and therefore most at risk. Unless there is civic renewal among the youth, and a recommitment to the values of nation-building, cricket and country will crash as failed projects.

In this cash-driven instance, striking players represent that section of youth society that has lost its way; it is misled, misguided, and in need of re-education and political orientation in respect to the legacy of cricket. As a WIPA supporter I have shared this view with Mr Ramnarine.

My advice to him has been “negotiate and agitate but do not violate”. It was the same in 1998 when our well-paid players when on strike for more cash, disgracing the nation in the face of Mandela’s invitation. They got the cash and lost Test and ODI’s 11-0.

I have closely associated with the preparation of the Patterson Report. I was a part of the WICB meeting and sat in the Caricom Cricket committee chaired by PM Spencer of Antigua when the document was received. It is not true that the report was disregarded. The vast majority of its recommendations matched the objectives of the WICB Cricket Strategic Plan which I helped to prepare. They were welcomed and approved.

The central proposal of a Stakeholders Council was also approved, though not as authoritative over the WICB but as advisory to the WICB. A period of three years was set aside to monitor this arrangement with a view to further reforms. Also, the Cricket Stakeholders Conference was approved. Prof. Eddie Green of Caricom and I are currently working on this. President Hunte endorsed these recommendations.

Non-cricket agenda unfortunately surrounds the Patterson Report, some of which have been scuttled. News out of Trinidad and Tobago has also been misleading. While Directors Deryck Murray and Dr Sammy did not attend the AGM of the WICB both were reelected to the WICB on their request to serve for another term and have since been active in the discharge of WICB duties. Director Murray has been a keen supporter of the difficult decisions taken by the WICB in respect of the tough issues before it.

The toughest of these concerns the integration of all players into Test and ODI teams. Striking players have been asked to commit to West Indies cricket by playing in the regional competition, and by showing purpose.

This is a correct position. The fear is that many brilliant young cricket careers are currently in balance on WIPA’s scale, but these should not be lost on account of the politics of a “few dollars more”. The best of bargaining comes from seeing that the golden goose should not be imperilled.

The WICB needs the money to modernise. Its management is under-resourced and weak. At the moment six people are trying to manage the tasks which are done by over 50 persons in England and more than 80 in Australia. Without WIPA’s support this modernisation cannot be achieved. Nor will the funds be found to invest in youth cricket, clubs, and other critical support systems.

The WICB has adopted the Australian model: about one quarter of all revenues to go to players. This is a good development and should find consensus.

Meanwhile, the youngsters in Reifer’s care should be nourished because when the likes of Gayle have moved on, it is these players who will be called upon to rebuild of greatest West Indian project – CRICKET.

(Professor, Sir Hilary Beckles, CLR James Centre for Cricket Research, UWI).