Nasim Ashraf, as board chairman, should not only delegate responsibility to the selection committee but also take responsibility in the event of failure © AFP

A bad process, a management consultant would tell you, usually produces a bad outcome. Little wonder, then, that Pakistan's selection "process" rarely pleases anybody. The current bickering between board and team management is just another variation on the theme of internal division that prevents the key players in Pakistan cricket from developing the team in a coherent, constructive, and successful fashion.

At the heart of the problem lies a tussle for control, a power struggle that is eternally unresolved. Captain, coach, chief of selectors, and chairman of the board are all potential rulers of the rabble--and it will remain a rabble as long as the hierarchy fluctuates with a frenzied frequency.

The last time Pakistan's selection process worked properly was when Imran Khan was in total control. That was a fortunate time for Pakistan cricket but an unfortunate lesson was learned. Imran's success suggested that the captain should be responsible for all selection matters, indeed it is an approach he has strongly advocated since.

But Imran's triumph rested on at least two foundations. First, Pakistan cricket was desperate for world recognition, a recognition that any era before Imran's captaincy had never achieved. Second, and most importantly, Imran had the personality and the ability to pull off his dictatorial strategy.

Many of his acolytes tried to follow. Wasim Akram came closest to emulating Imran's on-field success while Inzamam-ul Haq was nearest to total control. Yet none could match his leadership and determination, inevitably leaving a large hole for bureaucrats, selectors, and coaches to jump in to.

Who can now say what Pakistan's selection strategy and process is? In publicly acknowledging a "healthy debate" Dr Nasim Ashraf is hiding a fundamental disagreement. Everybody wants to rule but nobody is capable of it. It is in this situation that a good process can mask the inadequacies of individuals. No such process exists.

Pakistan fans look on with dismay as whims, fancies, and power fluctuations dictate selection of the national team. Merit looks to be an irrelevance. Selection decisions baffle, disappoint, and infuriate.

Might not the Zimbabwe series have been an ideal opportunity to give experience to Sarfraz Ahmed to mitigate the risk of Kamran Akmal's chronic bad form? Why did the selectors even bother with Samiullah Khan, a player I last saw lying on his back at a net practice ignoring Bob Woolmer, who was pleading with him to join the net session? What was the logic in leaving out Shoaib Akhtar when he was in desperate need of match fitness?

Readers of this blog will have questions of their own. Some people might argue, though, that healthy debates about selection are the essence of cricket's fascination. But the selection sickness in Pakistan cricket has become a terminal disease that requires urgent intervention.

In the absence of a modern day Imran Khan, Pakistan has the Australian model to follow. And this does not mean simply paying lip service to it but implementing it properly. A successful process requires three fundamentals: a high-quality selection committee of impeccable integrity, a captain and coach willing to acquiesce power and desperate to succeed with the selected team, and a cricket board chairman enlightened enough to delegate responsibility to the selection committee but take responsibility in the event of failure.

Sadly, Pakistan cricket has none of these three elements in place. Worse still, none of the individuals involved has shown the guts or the selflessness to make it happen. Millions upon millions of supporters are desperate for a process that will nurture success rather than turn their hopes into dust.

The selection process is sick but we are all sicker for having to endure it.

	The change that Malik has to make is that, whatever his form, he must stamp his authority on the team and discard any inhibitions he might have over his leadership role © AFP

In many ways the difference in fortunes is reflected by the difference in leadership. Mahendra Dhoni and Anil Kumble have assumed their roles in reassuring fashion, inspiring more senior and more celebrated colleagues respectively to outstanding performances. India's batting remains strong but the bowling remains raw, hence progress was not a given.

Across the border, Shoaib Malik has flattered to deceive. Pakistan, with out of form unsettled batsmen and injured bowlers, might have more rebuilding to do yet their achievements since the Twenty20 World Cup have still been a disappointment. The best batting order remains something of a mystery and the production line of bowlers might not have dried up but it cannot decide which is this year's model.

Above all, Malik has looked too much of a passenger in his own team. The change that Malik has to make, and he has to make it quickly, is that whatever his form, he must stamp his authority on the team and discard any inhibitions he might have over his leadership role. The biggest regret any failed leader can have is that they might not have done things their way.

The Zimbabwe series offers Malik an opportunity to learn how to command but as some bloggers have pointed out, the captaincy is not a learning role. The fans, if not the Pakistan Cricket Board, will quickly run out of patience. Anything but a crushing defeat of Zimbabwe will be unsatisfactory despite Pakistan's correct decision to blood new players.

Young players might provide hope and sporadic brilliance but the burden of Pakistan's resurgence in international cricket rests on the shoulders of its established players. Malik, Younis Khan, Mohammad Yousuf, Shahid Afridi, Salman Butt, and Misbah ul-Haq must take responsibility for guiding Pakistan to a better future. Misbah apart, responsibility has been an inconsistent trait among these players.

As such, the series should be a victory for Pakistan but its nature is uncertain. Indeed, we will not learn how good Pakistan are during this series although Zimbabwe might expose how bad the hosts can be.

Either way, Pakistan and Zimbabwe better get used to the look of each other. The political upheavals in both countries could mean that these meetings will become a regular occurrence. In that event, Malik might become the most successful captain in Pakistan's history.

	The removal of Steve Bucknor from the Perth Test is a crushing defeat for the ICC © AFP

If historians ever want to mark the period when power in cricket shifted to South Asia then this is it. Just over a year ago Pakistan clashed with Darrell Hair, now India have done battle with umpire and match referee. Both Test matches might have been lost by the complainant but they recorded landmark off-field victories.

Any Pakistan fan will have considerable empathy with the plight of Indians. They believe their team to be victims of fundamental injustices and they are unwilling to tolerate a slur on their reputation. Pride matters more than the result.

Yet there are two issues we must not forget in the mayhem.

First, while it might be almost impossible to judge the veracity of the charge against Harbhajan Singh--is one man's word better than the other's?--calling a fellow cricketer a "monkey" goes way beyond sledging. It is a racist term and cannot be excused. I'm afraid that South Asians are as likely to be as racist as any another population group. It is a sad fact and we must accept it and condemn it. My sincere hope is that Harbhajan was misheard. An appeal seems a fair resolution at this stage.

Second, removing Steve Bucknor from the Perth Test is a crushing defeat for the ICC. Umpires make mistakes. If we strive for perfection then all decisions should be deferred to and made in consultation with the third umpire. If we value the unpredictability of human error in cricket then we must point out but tolerate Bucknor's errors. Either way, Bucknor did not force a Test match to be abandoned--Hair's failing--he is the latest in a long line of umpires to have inadvertently encouraged a result. Either way, ICC has set a worrying precedent by bowing to Indian pressure.

The process of South Asian, and especially Indian, rule in international cricket has taken some time to reach a conclusion but it has today. Just as the days of English and Australian governance of cricket called out for some balancing power, the dominance of the South Asians requires a similar counterweight.

This week's events are lamentable for any overtones of racism, just as they are lamentable for any overtones of corporate bullying. My greatest regret, however, is that the ICC has failed to develop systems of governance that prevent the hegemonic rule of one or two powers. In this the ICC is replicating the failings of almost every known international organisation. It is a giant stride towards irrelevance.