Dear Editor,
I am privy to some encouraging stories, as shared by citizens recently, on a common experience that originated from a rather surprising source.
The stories are about constructive encounters with Commander Clifton Hicken (the same one) of the Guyana Police Force in his Brickdam Office. His door was open (apparently a standard), he made himself available, he listened, and he was cordial. Those members of the public walked away feeling and thinking differently. While the past can be crippling and an irremovable albatross for many, the present speaks as to how far one can aspire to rise. I submit that this approach, this potential renewal sets a commendable example.
To this end, I humbly recommend that His Excellency President Ramotar consider making it a practice, indeed a policy, to set aside time weekly to meet and listen to distressed citizens in his office. Four hours weekly would be a good start, given demands on time and other pressing responsibilities of office. Citizens should not be screened, except for security purposes. The audience must not be limited to region or party, but open to all. I suggest the same approach to the Leader of the Opposition. This is but a single step in the makeup, the presence, and the interest of a servant-leader: welcoming, listening, following-up. It is tangible and humbling; it is being there for those who elevated those leaders to where they are. Why not? I see only positives from such action practised on a consistent basis.
In this same vein, I now exhort the leaders of public-centric, customer facing institutions-such as the GPHC, the GRA, and the GPL, among others-to make random, frequent, unannounced visits to their public waiting areas. Frequent is much more than once monthly; it could be on the way in and out of the office, without making the same predictable. These leaders could find out what citizens are there for; what has been their experience; what is good and what is unacceptable. Such leadership presence also sends an unmistakable message to the staff that the interest of the public is paramount, be it in time spent, process followed, or professionalism extended.
Of course, it goes without saying that for a CEO (or Head of Department) to take such a step, and embrace this as an established modus vivendi, then he or she must be aboveboard and beyond reproach. He or she must be respected for integrity and standards, even feared for the same. If the opposite pertains, even though a whiff, then no leader-political, corporate, or otherwise-would be in a position to embark on such a signaling presence and wholesome, purifying mission. If he himself is clean, but protects venal comrades, friends and family members, then these would be exercises in futility attracting secret ridicule, temporary acquiescence and, eventually, whistleblowing from those challenged and facing exposure. One must wonder if this is why so many senior officers are MIA in their respective domains; and what stays their hand, and renders them virtually nonexistent on the corruption front….
On the other hand, if there is nothing to fear, then I say why not reach out to the public as “me” instead of “them; as “self” rather than “others.” Failure to do so translates to disinterest and weakness. The weakness could be interpreted correctly as either personal or occupational or ethical. Accordingly, I urge these well-paid, well-resourced, well-knowing public persons to get out of the elevated offices. Get on the ground. Get to the people. Get out today. And then serve them. Serve them!
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
