Dear Editor,
Media reports and other commentaries on the recent award of national honours indicated a hullabaloo of cynicism and apparent boomerang in the public domain regarding the conception, implementation and consequences of this and other typically routine annual rituals.
Recognition, acknowledgement and celebration of people’s achievements are normally powerful processes to generate and sustain positive behaviour. (Interestingly, Bruce Fogle’s book on The Dog’s Mind confirms similar cause and effect correlations in animal behaviour); however, injudicious awards/rewards can have the opposite effect on the many who perceive themselves as equally good, if not better than those who were singled out for the awards. I believe a case can be made for an overhaul of current practices. For a start, I think it will help if the decision-makers can pay more attention to context and what already obtains in order to reduce the unintended fall-outs. A few examples might be helpful here:
In the context of people in ‘paid employment’ which as far as I know was the case of the majority in the last list, their differential levels/quality of work are already variously recognized by differentiated compensation, opportunistic promotion and other forms of recognition within their companies/organizations; some employers have other in-house programmes of recognition. It is natural to find some dissatisfaction with their implementation, but mechanisms are in place or can be put in place to resolve these.
It is a double-dip for the State to superimpose national honours for paid work. There must be a distinction in relation to ‘contractual’, expressed and implied duties and responsibilities in regular employment. For example, a policeman/fireman is paid to save people from crime and fires, unlike the neighbour or passer-by who voluntarily does the same things out of good neighbourliness or a sense of civic duty/responsibility. Obviously, national honours are more germane to the latter. Similarly, the doctors who save lives by their professional practice are not the same as the numerous, public spirited citizens who also save lives in other circumstances and by ‘non-medical’ means. Consultants, engineers, lawyers, contractors and businessmen, etc, collect fees, commissions, profits. In the field of professional sports, sportsmen/ women compete for selection and are compensated (in some cases extremely handsomely) for excellence and differential performances. In the field of music and literature, commissions and royalties are by no means insignificant. And it is difficult to resist mentioning the personally profitable field of politics so much in vogue these days, where it appears that opportunities for aggrandizement, sycophantic adulation and, as we know only too well in Guyana, pecuniary benefits are unlimited!
Another negative is the cheapening of national honours by the excessive numbers awarded: 70 per annum for our tiny population? One wonders what the number is or would be for an average-sized population. However, the main thrust of this letter is that in virtually every sphere of human activity, there are already mechanisms in place that inherently provide the necessary incentives and recognition, thus obviating the need for another layer like our National Awards.
What is indeed eminently deserving of consideration and attention is a scheme to promote and recognize volunteerism and selflessness, especially at the grass-roots, community levels where the prime mover for action is altruism and/or where the initiators /participants in community development and individual/social services to the hapless or underprivileged are suitably honoured by the nation for selfless services and altruistic leadership.
I therefore strongly recommend a thorough review of our national honours scheme.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
