Dear Editor,
Over the past several months there has been intense discussion about the use of the polygraph machine as a lie detector.
It is a curious debate since were we honest with ourselves, consciences would admit to lying at some time, particularly to ourselves. This truism applies in every society, culture, and interestingly enough, even among devoted religious practitioners.
The current debate generates mainly defensive arguments from the contesting sides. One legitimate perception is that the application locally of the polygraph test to a selected few could not achieve the presumed objective of raising the level of integrity in doing business, in the public service for instance. UWI’s Professor Selwyn Ryan of Trinidad reflected, after a visit to Guyana some years ago, that there was no ‘corruption’ in the country, it was only ‘business.’
The implication is that it is not simply a matter for ‘testing,’ but that the more fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, transparency and best practices needed to be actively embraced. Poly-graph testing could not have saved CLICO for example. On the other hand, observance of the aforementioned principles and practices, amongst others, would have saved CLICO from itself.
But the CLICO experience is only a minuscule sample of the institutionalized dishonesty and misrepresentation which pervaded so-called reputable private financial institutions which created the world’s recent financial crisis, and wasted economies, large, medium and small.
Investments have since been made, and some promised, in revitalizing those depleted, but necessary, components of our economic life. Promises are not necessarily assurances, however. Does one apply the polygraph test in the case of those authorities who have undertaken to mitigate current anxieties, and assuage fears for the future? Or do we explore the option of having leaders commit to certain ideals and goals that will lift their standards of behaviour to the level of models to be emulated by those whom they lead?
The cynic quickly points to all the oaths that are statutorily taken by incumbents of high offices and asks: “What else is new?” It is in fact traditional for professionals, in private and public practice, to swear relevant oaths – in the fields of medicine, law and accounting, for example. It therefore should not be novel for these professionals, their associations, as well as related non-government organisations and civil society as a whole, to demand that their own leaderships, in turn, be exemplars whose behaviour, if only by contrast, could serve as stimulus to that of the national leaders they acclaim.
Should not the captains of growth recognise the linkage between entrepreneurial competitiveness, which they noisily espouse, and the ethical standards explicit in the corporate social responsibility they effusively proclaim? Should not, for instance, the four-way test evocatively pursued in more private fora, be translated into a relevant measurement of national character?
Just as the quality of leadership cannot be verified by a polygraph test, failure of the latter is no certification that the image of criminality, wittingly or unwittingly projected, is accurate or indeed fair. Just as no allowance appears to be made for the real possibility of post-polygraph rehabilitation, there is little or no guarantee that those exempted from the test are ipso facto uncorrupted.
One alternative is perhaps to deepen the institutionalisation of public undertakings to do the right thing, that is to uphold those positive values that crystallise into the forgotten code of honour – behaviour that can be trusted.
My text is taken from one Global Business School which administers the following oath to its students and future business leaders:
“I will strive to act with honesty and integrity. I will respect the rights and dignity of all people. I will strive to create sustainable prosperity worldwide. I will oppose all forms of corruption and exploitation. And I will take responsibility for my actions. As I hold true to these principles, it is my hope that I may enjoy an honorable reputation and peace of conscience.”
It is to be noted that there are public and private
agencies in Guyana which commit their employees to the following, as applicable:
– Code of Conduct
– Conflict of Interest Code
– Disciplinary Code (in which the union may be a partner).
Yours faithfully,
E B John
