Dear Editor,
Poor Prem Misir. The timing is not very good just now. If he knows anything about cricket he is bound to realise that he is playing off the back foot.
One always assumed that an academic like Dr Misir would be predisposed to the objectivity for which his scholarship should have been characteristic. Instead he prefers to be regarded as another political commentator. In our besieged environment the implication of bias is automatic.
Contrary to his uninformed view ‘micro-management’ is identified as a counter-productive management style which is condemned internationally in every respected management publication, for the obvious reason that it undermines the authority that should complement responsibility, pollutes and dilutes the decision-making process, and diminishes the self-confidence of the players involved.
The letter captioned “Dr Misir’s submission on marginalization was simplistic and not impressive” (08.04.09) to which Misir has responded in Kaieteur News April 11, and the Guyana Chronicle of April 10, would not have been allowed, at least in the latter newspaper, exactly as a result of the specific policy instructed by the Administration to the Chronicle’s Board.
This ‘exclusion’ is certainly synonymous with ‘marginalisation’ , and is reflective of the style of micro-management which permeates every public sector organisation in this country, without exception.
It is truly regrettable that this scholar suffers from the myopia that afflicts his colleagues and masters. So that rather than deafening himself to the assertions of ‘marginalisation’ in our environment, he should be persuaded to investigate the validity of the range of situations identified. He could still do a substantive service to the Administration, if he were to take such an initiative.
Part II therefore of Misir’s Perspective on ‘marginalisation’ published in the Sunday Chronicle of April 6, 2008, is another useless exercise in obfuscatory statistics. The ethnic distribution continues to be meaningless. This is compounded by the author’s refusal to recognise the ‘marginalisation’ of institutions, regardless of ethnic distribution. Once again the allegation on Channel 6’s (last) programme on Friday night, April 11, that the Speaker of the National Assembly was being disciplined is a worrying reference to the marginalisation process.
Misir would certainly be familiar with the well publicised micro-management of the UG Council, for example; and the embarrassing ‘miniaturisation’ (if he insists) of the Vice- Chancellor, amongst others.
Again Misir should be invited to re-read (he couldn’t possibly have missed it!) S.N’s editorial of April 11, 2008, and its explicit reference to the ‘marginalisation’ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from which a perceptibly ‘micro-managed’ Foreign Minister has recently demitted his stressed-out office.
Embarrassingly his successor, less than a week in office, has had her views publicly challenged by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat over the matter of Venezuela’s aid to Buxton. This obvious confusion of signals surrounding reporting relationships and accountability may appear to have just emerged, but as a stressor, it is really reflective of the continuum of micro-management from ‘across the road’.
Experiences of the Guyana Water Inc. (listed in Misir’s table as Guyana Water Authority), the Forestry Commission, Guyana Gold Board, Go Invest and the NIS for example, are not necessarily dissimilar.
In one instance an official of a PPP Trade union is the non-executive Director of a Board, with unchallenged responsibility and authority for all appointments. Which brings us to this depressing fact: the ‘Africans’ condescendingly appointed to Public Boards are usually expected to be ‘politically correct’. They are not expected to flex their intellectual muscle. Even ‘politically incorrect’ Indians, however relevantly qualified, are not deemed acceptable. So much for ‘ethnic’ distribution.
But I began by saying that this was not an auspicious time for the Misirs of this world. The recent dictat that has resulted in the closure of Channel 6 for four months must surely be cause for their blushes; and pause for their reflection on the insidious forms of ‘marginalisation’.
Members of the ACB must feel at least discomfited.
Incidentally, this topic was discussed in the press as far back as 2005, when a certain Minister took the same myopic stance as currently espoused. One Joelle Joaquin writing to SN at the time, had this to say: “Marginalisation” is about: the demoralization of the spirit; the consequential diminution of energy and motivation to produce; the loss of hope – which descends into desperation to quit and migrate – all to the detriment of self, family and the community as a whole.
Fundamentally it is the loss of self-respect which unhappily informs the loss of respect for those who caused the condition.
Marginalisation is in fact so endemic a condition in the society that it is accepted as a natural phenomenon, and hardly perceived as an aberration.”
Yours faithfully,
Carl Abrahams
