Official public acceptance of responsibility in instances of tragic occurrences for which government might reasonably be expected to shoulder the responsibility is not part of the political DNA of this country. It is a practice that is commonplace in countries where functionaries placed in positions of power are required to embrace the attendant responsibility. When they are weighed and found wanting they understand their options. Here in Guyana we tend to allow our high officials, particularly our politicians, to embrace the power often without having to take the burden of the attendant responsibility.
In the instance of last Friday’s tragic fire at the Drop-In Centre in which two young brothers, aged two and six perished, the news that the Ministry of Social Protection had accepted responsibility came almost as quickly as the news of the fire itself. Owning up is not a habit to which public officials are accustomed and it would not be surprising if the decision that in this instance the government would have to ‘carry the can,’ came from the President himself.
Mind you, we are yet to learn in any particular detail exactly what the government means when it says it is ‘taking responsibility.’ How far beyond meeting the burial costs of the two deceased children does ‘taking responsibility’ go? We have to hope that it goes much further, as far as an early, thorough inquiry is concerned, not only into the fire at the Drop-In Centre but across the gamut of the state-run child-care infrastructure.
There have been problems in the Drop-In Centre which have come to public attention before, not the least of which was the fire there in 2010. The investigation into the most recent tragedy would have to take into account what measures were taken following the earlier fire to prevent a recurrence, and if any new protocols were introduced and if these were adhered to. Some of the children housed at the centre are very young, and it needs to be explained to the public what kind of fire drills, if any, were in operation, or whether it was that there were no arrangements for emergency evacuations in place and no practice runs had ever been held. It is difficult to determine just how much progress had been made in upgrading the facility between then and now.
It would need to be established from a fire-prevention standpoint whether the building was safe, and if it was not, why not. It is important to know too whether on the night of the fire there was a sufficiently substantial experienced adult presence at the centre. On the face of things, given the number of children and the fact that some of them were so young, it might appear that there was not.
On a different matter, towards the end of last year there had been reports of the presence of German cockroaches at the Drop-In Centre; this is a species of roach which is known to be notoriously difficult to eliminate. The authorities denied the veracity of the report issuing a weak and unconvincing defence of the conditions at the facility, that did nothing to dispel public suspicion. After that the whole affair simply disappeared from the radar.
After Friday’s fire, failure to mount a serious inquiry would be an overwhelming travesty. There are too many critical questions that simply must be answered. The government, having placed itself in the dock, so to speak, should take the opportunity to extend its investigation into the various facets of state-run child-care. Beyond that, state-run facilities for children must become more open to official reporting and provide the opportunity for ongoing monitoring that allows for greater enlightenment regarding the quality of the services being provided by the relevant institutions. Not least, of course, is the need for officials at the administrative level tasked with ensuring that these facilities provide a safe and convivial environment to be held accountable. The stakes are simply too high for complacency to persist.