Dear Editor,
Permit me to further elucidate in relation to Melinda Janki’s letter on social cohesion (‘For any improvement in social cohesion we must first practice basic good manners’ SN, September 11); GHK Lall’s letter (‘Is social cohesion really desired? SN, September 5); and that of Lincoln Lewis (‘Social cohesion needs more than a consultative process’, SN, September 12).
Dick Stanley in his book What Do We Know About Social Cohesion defines social cohesion as “the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to strive and prosper. Willingness to cooperate means they freely choose to form partnerships and have a reasonable chance of realizing goals because others are willing to cooperate and share the fruits of their endeavours equitably.” Somehow or other I get the strange impression that this definition is not applicable to Guyana, (at least not at present) but to the mythical Shangri La described in Lost Horizon.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies with market economies including (among others) the UK, France, Germany and the USA work with each other along with 70 non-member economies to promote economic growth, prosperity and sustainable development, defines social cohesion thus: “A cohesive society works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility.”
The notion of social cohesion has diverse meanings and been subject to various interpretations, nevertheless its constituent elements include concerns about social inclusion, social capital and social mobility. Let us not forget that Guyana embarked on Social Cohesion Project II which began on March 1, 2015, and is to last one year. It is aimed at strengthening public participation, trust and confidence in national governance institutions. Has the public been made privy to any findings to date? Could this project be hailed a success? Is anything being learnt from this venture, that can be applied to future ventures of such a nature?
Mr Lewis has clearly and meticulously outlined the demands of the government as well as the expectations of citizens as regards the new Ministry of Social Cohesion. Should the government not familiarize the populace at large as to the role, goals and objectives of this new ministry, especially in the light of social inclusion and social mobility? As a longstanding member of the pedagogical profession, permit me to add fuel to the fire already ignited by Mr Lewis with respect to education and its role in social cohesion. We cannot and must not overlook the importance of education in the social cohesion forum. There are in mathematical equations certain variables that must always be factored in if a correct answer is to be arrived at. Education is and remains a vital part of any social cohesion agenda, as educational outcomes affect all three dimensions of the social cohesion triangle. Firstly the schooling experience in itself shapes and impacts social cohesion, as it transmits common values. How children are schooled is important for building their sense of belonging to a society. Currently in Guyana this is in itself a problem and one which must be addressed urgently as a priority. Opportunities for quality education must be made available all across Guyana even to disadvantaged groups such as hinterland residents, as schooling is a leveller for upward mobility.
Still on the subject of school but viewing it from a health perspective, there remain other non-school inputs that must also be given consideration. Pre-school programmes and early life nutrition would insure that no child falls short of his or her developmental potential due to nutritional deficiency. In addition, maternal education has a positive impact on children’s health and future prospects. The implementation of gender-sensitive school policies and facilities fosters social integration.
What was noticeably absent from the discussion was the mention of dissenting voices and the part they play in social cohesion. It is fundamentally important in the creation of a creative society that dissenting voices be given space. Both civic participation and political feedback should be controlled and made use of if growth processes are not to be derailed. However, inclusive policy-making is essential, to bring in the views of all stakeholders, from those who will be implementing the policies right down to the final beneficiaries. The policies that emerge from such a process will benefit from having greater legitimacy and support that would determine their effectiveness in the long run.
The implementation of a social cohesion policy agenda requires effective administration and above all coordinated action across multiple policy domains. In addition, the involvement of multitudinous actors across different levels of government calls for negotiated roles to ensure accountability. This may in some cases (especially given the current political climate) call for closure rather than exposure. Underpinning successful public action are strong institutions and a quality public service. While the current deliberation on social cohesion is afforded all the laudatory remarks it merits, on a cautionary note, it is my sincere desire that eventual implementation takes into consideration all stakeholders.
Yours faithfully,
Yvonne Sam
