Minimum moral measurement

Dec 23, 2020 Editorial

Kaieteur News – Only the starry-eyed and ostrich-like would deny that much of this society exists in a state of decay. Any conscientious and honest presence, local or foreign, conducting only a superficial review of our way of doing things, would be compelled to conclude that we are consistently going about things in the wrong way.
At the highest levels in this land, we earmark people for appointment to ministerial positions. Whether they are qualified and suitable is not of interest or objective today. Rather, it is what should have been done that is not done, the steps to be followed that were ignored or given the shortest of thrifts. Appropriate due diligence is the start, and even when not detected (or disclosed) upfront, but when discovered later with everybody having egg on their faces, then certain curing actions become necessary, definitely compulsory.
The first is not to circle wagons and put out defences that insult citizens and create new problems. It is better to regroup, hit the pause button to afford time, get to the bottom of the matter and, if there are gaps, then plug those first and only then proceed. As an example, it would have been better, far more credible and satisfying, if the appointment of the minister in the middle of the dual citizenship dispute was held up temporarily, until such time that all questions, concerns, and issues were resolved. The quibbling over date(s) is unseemly and somewhat unbecoming for someone who is to number among the ranks of lawmakers.
As things have unfolded and been responded to, a cloud remains over the head of this particular budding legislator. In sum, there should have been and must be a process to deal with contingencies such as these, and of which we have had our share through different matters developing over the years.
When we persist in attempts to stuff things down the throats of opponents and a largely passive population, more harm than good is the result. Let there be minimum ethical and moral standards, which are inviolable, hence non-negotiable. And if this means that there is necessity to start over with somebody new, then that is that.
The same standards, which must become the prevailing norm, must be brought to bear for the people we hire as professionals to fill key slots in our public service system. Even when it is obvious that political workers are being recognized and political favors are being granted, the screening process in place must be so robust and ethical in itself that contaminated people do not make the grade.
In other words, they do not measure up and, thus, must be overlooked, however regrettable that may be. It just has to be, if the people who lead this country are going to stop talking about ethics and principles, and make a beginning at practicing what they preach with a straight face.
It goes without saying that the local and foreign companies with which we do business must be held to the identical yardstick. If we are to get anywhere, we have to commit to an irreversible start somewhere, make every effort to be consistent, and hold to the same standards before friend and foe. If not, then all we will ever amount to is so much hot air, which is always on the hunt for higher and wider air to take up lingering residence.
As an example of this, is where a private sector body took objection to the application of restraining measures on one of its own. It is on record of uttering allegation about selective implementation with pandemic regulations, which opens it to claims of some cherry picking of its own. Sometimes, feathers of friends have to be ruffled if any real progress is going to be made. When there is this rush to protect constituencies, the broken norm becomes the result.
The way we go about things – the order, the process, the decision-making, the truths they reveal about what kind of governance we hold dear (not just mouth off about), the kind of society we wish to build and in which we would like to live. We have to start somewhere; we must do so now, and constantly.