Despite the London decision of the G-20 bloc that the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) must in future be selected on merit, the Europeans have the arrogance and audacity to state that the replacement for Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn should be a European.

Add to that the fact that a European has been in that post since its inception in 1944 for a total of 66 years. A Frenchman has been MD for 26 of the last 33 years.

To had insult to injury, the Europeans are lobbying for the current finance minister of France, Ms Christine Lagarde, to be the next MD of the IMF. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already declared that “the current situation speaks for a European candidate, given the considerable problems of the euro”. This could well raise the issue of conflict of interest or accusations of bias or favouritism.

The transparently specious argument being advanced is that the next head of the IMF should be a European because of the multiple debt crises in Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

If the existence of a debt crisis was the criterion, then someone from the United States would be the obvious nominee. If the criteria are not to be talent, qualifications and experience, then several other bases for selection could be advanced. For example, the country with the largest international reserves, then the nominee would be from China. Using share of the world’s population represented would yield candidates from China and India. Recognising that developing countries have been the main customers of the IMF then a candidate would be from, say, Brazil or Mexico or Nigeria. Maybe the criteria should be to select someone from a country whose economic fundamentals are sound and would not need to borrow from the IMF. This approach would yield candidates from Canada or Saudi Arabia.

The next managing director of the IMF must the selected on merit by a process which is transparent and democratic. This is the only way to identify a most suitable candidate based on technical qualifications, policy experience, managerial capacity, demonstrated record of leadership and political acumen. Such an approach is imperative, given the importance of the IMF in the midst of a global financial crisis.

In the absence of a democratic process based on merit, the legitimacy of the IMF will be brought into question and there will be a continuation of the criticism that it is run by a cabal of rich countries and run in their interests. Many in the developing countries feel that the leadership of the IMF has never been empathetic to their circumstances nor have sufficiently understood the structural origins of their economic problems.

The Europeans must live up to the ideals of democracy, fairness and justice which they espouse and in that spirit the EU should not put forward a candidate. So important is it that the change be demonstrated that, at least for this time, no European should be selected. Even if a European was the best person for the job, the world will not be convinced that they were not selected by power at the expense of principle.

Fair play must not only be practised, it must be seen to be practised.