Dear Editor,
Over the past week the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has moved to the High Court seeking a resolution of two issues. One involves the ‘alleged’ appointment of Alliance for Change (AFC) Trevor Williams as Youth Director in the Ministry of Education; the other is related to alleged instructions by the Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection, Simona Broomes to the Public Service Commission (PSC) to temporarily stop planned interviews.
During the 10th Parliament we have seen many matters being taken before the courts by the PPP/C, the then government, and APNU and the AFC, the then opposition parties in Parliament. From its recent actions, it is clear that the PPP/C as the opposition intends to use the option of the court to resolve some its issues with the new APNU+AFC coalition government.
The question here is whether there are other ways in which our political leaders can seek resolutions to issues such as these? I think there are; however, one of our challenges is that we have many lawyers as political leaders. Lawyers are trained to be adversarial and combative. The courts were established to facilitate adversarial and combative approaches, hence the decisions of the courts are invariably more geared towards a win/lose result. Thus, in many of these cases, the courts do not really find a solution to the real problem. I would like to see more sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and possibly artists in our leadership. This mix of persons will widen the perspective within our leadership and influence decision-making in a more scientific way.
Our leaders have to become more creative and innovative in trying to find solutions to our problems. The frequency with which both sides of the National Assembly move to the courts for solutions reflects a particular kind of approach to problem-solving. There is a primary principle in behaviourial psychology, that life is about stimulus and response. What we have been seeing is that as issues (the stimulus) arise, in this case the alleged appointment of the Youth Director and the alleged instructions from the Minister to the PSC, the reaction (response) from the opposition, is to move to the High Court.
While there is the principle of stimulus and response, experts maintain that what is important is how the response is managed, meaning the range of considerations and deliberations, etc, which happen between the stimulus and the response.
After examining this behaviour for almost four years, I wish to suggest that our leaders – both government and opposition − seek to elevate their approach to resolving issues of governance. One thing that is evident is that our leaders are not talking to each other; some are not talking at all, while others are not listening. They are basically not having conversations. If Guyana is to progress and attract substantial investors and tourists, our leaders have to learn to talk to each other. They must have conversations, change the way they have those conversations, change the way they listen to and process each other and change their approach to their roles and responsibilities to the people of this nation.
Some of our leaders at times project a ‘victim’s mentality’, a perception that they are victims. As a result of that perception, they practise, to use my own words ‘defensive leadership’. Whether this perception is real or perceived, it nevertheless influences the decision-making process.
It is imperative that our leaders become more analytical both in their approach to leadership and decision-making.
Here are some possible solutions. Empowerment is two-fold; it is building capacity on the one hand and capabilities on the other. Many of our leaders have some capacity, meaning that they may be qualified in particular areas and may have experience and expertise in those and other areas; however, from their approach to problem-solving and the results therein, it is clear that many of them are not capable of nurturing and facilitating an environment that can transition Guyana to a competitive level.
To give an example, earlier this year I was attending a meeting along with some colleagues at a commission. During our discussion, one of the commissioners, a lawyer by profession, approached our discussion in a very combative manner. After the meeting, I was commenting to my colleagues that the commissioner was behaving as though they were in court and showed a lack of capability to transition from a lawyer in a courtroom, to play the role of a commissioner on a national commission. One may point out that the commissioner is qualified, since the person is a lawyer, but herein lies a problem for countries like Guyana: our people also have to be capable of executing their various roles and be able to transition smoothly and professionally between those roles and in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Hence training can assist in addressing the issue of lack of capability; the international community can really assist us with this. For example, perhaps the United Nations and the Commonwealth can assist our leaders to build capacity in having more conversations with each other and to develop a different approach to finding solutions to our problems.
Suggestion: can these organizations assist us in setting up a panel of ‘Master Mediators’? Possibly for the next six months. This body could consist of former judges and highly respected persons. One of the roles of this body could be to facilitate conversations and mediate between the government and the opposition on national issues.
Another point to note is that the emerging behaviour of Guyanese society from a large-power-distance to more of a small-power-distance country will result in the judiciary, now more than ever before, performing the function in the society of the third arm of government. As more issues arise from the decisions and actions of the executive and the legislature, the judiciary will become the stabilizing force.
Hence, judicial reform should enable the judicial system to function more effectively as that third arm of government and to find more win-win solutions. Perhaps my ‘Master Mediators’ concept should be considered as a mechanism for resolving disputes at a high level for example, politically and otherwise.
Finally, it is difficult for the people of a country to cope with the situation we have found ourselves in – three years of an unstable National Assembly, a no-confidence motion being submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly, a prorogation of the Parliament, the calling of early elections, a vicious and intense elections season, elections and an after-elections tension. This shows a level of irresponsibility on the part of our leaders and an inability to transition beyond the problem to find the solution.
Albert Einstein said that intellectuals solve problems and geniuses prevent them. It appears that many of our leaders are neither intellectuals nor geniuses because they are neither solving nor preventing problems in our society. This behaviour is not progressive, and this level of leadership is unacceptable in 2015 for a country that is endowed with so much potential and resources and yet is plagued with poverty. May the intellectuals and geniuses among our leaders arise.
To the investors, you are welcome; we have our issues but we are addressing them. We the people of Guyana would like to assure them that we will work with our leaders and the international community to make Guyana a safe and secure environment for their investments.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
