When the Committee Room Stops Racing
Horse racing is built on competition, but
competition appears to be disappearing from the committee rooms of some racing clubs.
When the same people remain in power for years, elections become predictable,
opposition weakens and fresh ideas struggle to find space. Experience is
valuable, but prolonged control can breed complacency, vested
interests and intolerance of criticism. Should racing now examine whether fixed
terms and genuine leadership renewal are necessary for healthier, more
accountable institutions?
By Sharan Kumar
Horse racing is built on competition. Horses compete
for prizes, jockeys for winners, trainers for championships and owners for
recognition. Yet in some of India’s race clubs, the one place where competition
appears to have disappeared is the committee room. When the same people remain
in control for years, sometimes decades, elections become predictable,
opposition weakens and fresh ideas struggle to find space. Experience brings
continuity and institutional knowledge, but it should not become a licence for
indefinite tenure, because prolonged control can gradually breed complacency,
vested interests and intolerance of criticism, even without any suggestion of
wrongdoing.
This is not an argument against any particular
individual, but for institutional renewal. At Bangalore and Mysore, the rules
provide for two terms of two years, followed by a break before a person can
return. Other clubs have no comparable limitation. Even where a cooling-off
period exists, however, there is a legitimate question about whether a one-year
break is meaningful if the same person can return immediately afterwards and
resume the same influence. A genuine cooling-off provision should give the institution
an opportunity to develop new leadership rather than simply require the
incumbent to vacate the chair temporarily.
The issue becomes more important when elections
themselves cease to be genuinely competitive. Former RWITC chairman Vivek Jain
made a pertinent observation recently while writing about the club’s committee
elections. He argued that opposition is healthy in any democracy because
members exercising their vote help prevent complacency. He also referred to the
Cricket Club of India’s decision to introduce a compulsory two-year break for
the president and treasurer after two successive terms, suggesting that RWITC
could consider a similar system. It is an idea worth examining across Indian
racing.
There was a time when race-club elections were events
in themselves, with candidates campaigning, members debating, alliances
shifting and an upset always possible. At some clubs today, however, the result
can almost be known before the ballot is cast. An election without meaningful
opposition may satisfy the technical requirements of democracy, but it loses
its most important feature: choice. A contested election forces those in office
to defend their record, gives challengers an opportunity to question decisions
and present alternatives, and gives members the power to demand a different
direction. When there is no realistic challenger, much of that pressure
disappears. The danger is not necessarily that every incumbent is incompetent,
but that there is no longer a compelling reason for the institution to change
and the status quo becomes the safest policy.
Over time, the effects can be subtle. The same
committees continue, the same methods are followed and the same arguments are
repeated. New ideas can be viewed as disruptive simply because they challenge
established arrangements, while those who question decisions may gradually be
regarded less as members exercising their democratic rights and more as
troublemakers. That is when concentration of power becomes unhealthy. The
longer individuals remain in control, the greater the possibility that
institutional relationships and personal loyalties become intertwined.
Eventually, the authority of an influential office bearer can extend beyond the
office itself, with the institution beginning to accommodate the individual
rather than the individual remaining accountable to the institution.
This is why the Lodha Committee’s thinking on tenure
in sports administration is relevant to racing. The principle was not that
experienced administrators were undesirable, but that power should not remain
concentrated indefinitely in a small group. Racing need not copy cricket in
every detail, but it could establish its own governance framework combining
fixed terms, a maximum aggregate tenure, a meaningful cooling-off period and
safeguards against circumventing term limits simply by moving from one office
to another. Such a system would not punish experience; it would ensure that
experience is periodically complemented by renewal.
Nor should modern voting procedures be blamed for weak
competition. Electronic voting can make participation easier, but clubs must
ensure that an independent candidate has more than a theoretical right to
contest and a realistic opportunity to compete. Otherwise, a cycle develops in
which members who believe the result is unlikely to change lose interest,
capable people who see little chance of breaking an established arrangement
stop offering themselves for election, and the shrinking talent pool makes it
even easier for the existing leadership to retain control. The eventual
casualty is fresh thinking.
Indian racing already faces enough challenges, from
taxation and regulation to changing wagering patterns, attracting younger
audiences, technology and the need to modernise club administration. These
problems require new ideas, and new ideas are less likely to emerge when
leadership becomes effectively closed. There is also a basic democratic
principle that racing clubs should remember: criticism is not disloyalty,
opposition is not hostility and disagreement is not an attack on the
institution. A strong institution should be able to withstand criticism and
answer it, and if members feel discouraged from questioning decisions because
the same people have controlled the institution for years, democracy has
suffered even if elections continue to appear on the calendar.
Term limits should therefore not be presented as a
judgement on those who have served for many years, but as protection for the
institution itself. No one should become indispensable to a sporting club,
because good governance should produce successors rather than permanent
occupants. Horse racing understands the value of competition better than most
sports, and a race without rivals is a walkover. Race clubs should be careful
not to allow their elections to become the same. The objective is not to remove
experience, but to ensure that experience does not become entitlement,
continuity does not become complacency and stability does not become
stagnation. When the committee room stops racing, eventually the institution
itself may stop moving.
Comments
Post a Comment