Pakistan cricket is once again facing a painful moment. The recent 3-0 Test series whitewash in England has disappointed millions of fans, but the decline of the national team did not begin with this series.

The more important question is whether we have been trying to fix the players while ignoring the system that produces them.

The real problem, in my view, lies in the governance and structure of domestic cricket.

Pakistan needs a stable, democratic and representative cricketing system from the club level to the national team. For that reason, the PCB constitution deserves serious reconsideration, particularly the older 1996 constitutional framework and its comparison with the present 2014 constitution.

The 1996 structure was more representative in character. Cricket associations and departments had due representation, while the General Body and Executive Councils provided a broader democratic framework for running PCB affairs. The basic principle was simple: those who actually developed and supported cricket should have a meaningful voice in its governance.

The present 2014 constitution also provides for regional and departmental representation. However, Pakistan cricket has repeatedly changed its constitutional and domestic structures. The 2019 constitution replaced the regional, departmental and district/zonal system with six regional cricket associations and 90 city/zonal associations. In December 2022, the 2019 constitution was repealed and the 2014 constitution restored; regional, departmental and district/zonal cricket were subsequently brought back. The PCB itself said in 2023 that the earlier structure had restricted opportunities, affected the livelihoods of hundreds of cricketers and contributed to a talent drain.

This constant restructuring is itself a problem. Cricket requires continuity. A domestic system cannot mature if its basic architecture changes whenever the leadership of the Board changes.

The 2019 experiment provides an important example. Traditional departmental cricket was abolished in favour of a six-team regional model inspired largely by the Australian system. The objective of creating stronger first-class cricket was understandable. But Pakistan is not Australia.

For decades, organisations such as PIA, WAPDA, Habib Bank, National Bank, SNGPL,SSGC Pakistan Railways provided cricketers with competitive opportunities as well as employment and financial security. Departmental cricket was, therefore, not simply another tournament; it was part of Pakistan’s cricketing and economic ecosystem.

The Australian model could not simply be transplanted into Pakistan without considering our very different population, economic circumstances and employment structure. Reform should improve an existing system, not dismantle its foundations before an equally sustainable alternative is in place.

The historical contribution of departmental cricket also deserves recognition. Former Pakistan captain Abdul Hafeez Kardar understood its importance and encouraged departments to develop cricket teams because they could provide both competitive cricket and employment to players. That practical approach remains relevant.

But departmental cricket alone cannot solve Pakistan’s problems. The other missing pillar is the independence and democratic character of cricket associations.

A strong domestic system requires genuinely elected associations. Clubs must have a meaningful role in electing their representatives, while district/zonal and regional bodies should emerge through transparent and credible elections. The PCB should conduct proper scrutiny of clubs, remove inactive or dummy clubs through a transparent process, and then hold elections in which genuine cricket stakeholders can participate.

This is particularly important because the quality of domestic cricket ultimately depends upon the quality of selection. If players are selected through transparent, merit-based processes, competition improves. If the system permits personal influence, groupings or control of clubs to affect selections, deserving players can be overlooked.

The answer is not to assume that every selection is unfair. The answer is to create a system in which the process itself is transparent enough to command confidence.

The same principle should apply to the PCB. The Board should have a stable constitutional structure representing all major stakeholders: elected regional associations, clubs at the grassroots level and departmental cricket. Departments that invest in cricket and provide employment to cricketers should have their due representation.

Most importantly, the PCB itself should have a genuinely democratic governance mechanism.

The PCB’s own 2023 process contemplated elections at district, zonal and regional levels and a democratic, elected Board of Governors, including elected regional presidents and departmental representatives. This principle deserves to be strengthened rather than treated as a temporary administrative arrangement.

The 1996 framework should, therefore, not be viewed merely through nostalgia. Its democratic features should be studied alongside the 2014 constitution and incorporated, where appropriate, into a modern constitution. The objective should not be to reproduce an old document word for word, but to recover the principle of genuine stakeholder participation.

Pakistan’s international rivals offer an obvious lesson. Australia has the Sheffield Shield, England has County Cricket and India has the Ranji Trophy and a large domestic structure. Their domestic competitions provide sustained opportunities for players to develop against strong opposition.

Pakistan also has enormous cricketing talent. What we need is a reliable pathway through which that talent can be identified, trained and tested. Clubs, academies, associations, departments and domestic competitions must function as connected parts of one system rather than as isolated or repeatedly redesigned structures.

The national team is only the visible face of Pakistan cricket. Its real strength lies beneath it.

If the foundation is weak, changing the captain, coach or a few players cannot provide a permanent solution. Pakistan needs to rebuild that foundation through constitutional stability, democratic representation, independent associations, meaningful departmental participation, transparent club recognition and merit-based selection.

The future of Pakistan cricket should therefore not be debated only in terms of who should captain the team or which players should be dropped.

The bigger question is: Who governs Pakistan cricket, how are they chosen, and does the system give every genuine cricket stakeholder a fair voice?

Until that question is answered properly, we may continue changing teams without changing the fortunes of Pakistan cricket.

{The writer is former Punjab University cricketer and Advocate High Court).