Tweet
Some things need changing!
Wesley Barrett
Monday, August 13, 2007
The only thing that seems constant in the life of an individual, nation and its institutions is the need to change. There are always some things that need changing and others which need to remain the same until further review.
Wesley Barrett
To recognise the difference calls for wisdom, sensitivity and critical evaluation. Yet so many individuals and organisations engage minimally or not at all in the crucial activity of recognising the need for change of some things, or the need to persist with others until further evaluation.
After observing some trends in national life and in some institutions, one is moved to make recommendations for drastic changes. Persisting with the status quo or continuing with a downward spiralling trend in some areas is inimical to progress and a threat to social stability and good governance. In other cases "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
One trend that should now be obvious to many people is for those responsible for setting rules and adhering to them to be the first ones to break them. The examples are legion and we hear only about a few through the auditor general and the contractor general. We probably do not hear about other high-profile ones that are deliberately covered up, sometimes by complicity. There are far too many rules that are broken by the custodians. All of this needs changing.
There is a trend for the political, administrative and technical directorates to be indistinguishable. All tend to speak interchangeably and often outside their portfolios and responsibilities when they speak. Some government ministers, for example, are often heard speaking on highly technical issues outside their expertise and competence. If and when they speak from prepared notes, the statements are so terse and lacking that relatively few people get a clear picture of the issues or problems involved. Happily, there are exemplary ministers who stick to policy issues and give support to technical staff. No change in the latter case should be encouraged.
We are hardly hearing regularly from technical staff in many ministries since the appointment of "information officers". The latter are regularly the ones who bear the burden to explain some technical issues for which they have little or no competence. Apparently gone are the days when we would hear authoritative statements and explanations made by those trained and certified chief technical directors in ministries and departments.
A few technical members of staff do make statements, but often these statements are restricted to unpalatable policy pronouncements the responsible policy makers wish not to make themselves. I urge a thorough review of and change in how technical information is communicated and the role of information officers in most organisations.
There is a general trend not only in government, but also in the private sector, national, community-based, and religious organisations to be exclusive in almost all endeavours. At the crest of the set of organisations are the political parties. They never always discern, even think that there are others outside their circles who can contribute to their programmes which have a national focus. If it is the question of constituting task forces, naming research teams, naming board members or recognising individuals they look almost totally within for nominees.
That is not to say that a few outsiders are not thrown in for good measure to give the impression that there is broad-based involvement. Consistently, the core and over 90 per cent of the selected group are usually members of the clan or enclave. The disconcerting thing is that often spurious selection criteria are applied, but these are never set out. Outspoken independent institutions or people are not included in key national activities since they are often not trusted to "toe the line".
This modus operandi needs changing.
There are variants or subtle forms of this practice of exclusivity. Media houses or suppliers of goods or services are punished or patronised on account of their attachments or allegiances. Many governing bodies, and chairs in particular, have the tendency to seek and accept information or advice almost exclusively from the chief executive officer even though the source may not be always credible. Multiple sources are not always sought.
Henchmen and political activists are often the single source of information for their parties. On account of the excessive practice of exclusivity, many flawed decisions are made with painful consequences for individuals, organisations and the nation. Significant changes in the functioning of political parties in the future are not only necessary, but indispensable for effective governance and social cohesion. The case is true for other organisations.
Some media practitioners tend to be blinkered in the coverage and reporting of events and functions. Often it is only politicians or people well known nationally who get reported. I have seen where the well-researched, informative and nationally relevant content of the speeches of little known but excellent guest speakers is not reported, yet the greeting of the politician who repeats information already known is carried as a major news item. One wonders if young journalists are adequately trained to report accurate, substantive, balanced and relevant statements and views expressed at functions. Excellent reporters there are, but their number is dwindling. The trend needs to be reversed.
The trend towards consensus on the key issues in education is excellent, and there should be no change. On the other hand, there is good reason to change the practice of making education a political football and providing it only with relatively meagre resources. There should be no change in the trend towards making the electoral system foolproof and elevating the primacy of the voter. The negative trends in many of our educational indicators need to change. Let us agree then to change some things and leave others intact.
Many people are criticising the fact that the political parties are making many promises. All over the world the political parties make promises, and it is naïve to think that many would not be made at an election campaign. There are very many negative things that can be changed easily by the political process if there is the will. We should expect the political parties to make promises to change them within current realities.
There should be a change now in the level of political debate to one that addresses strategies and resources. Let us reserve our judgements until we hear from rivals.
wesebar@yahoo.com
Wesley Barrett
Monday, August 13, 2007
The only thing that seems constant in the life of an individual, nation and its institutions is the need to change. There are always some things that need changing and others which need to remain the same until further review.
Wesley Barrett To recognise the difference calls for wisdom, sensitivity and critical evaluation. Yet so many individuals and organisations engage minimally or not at all in the crucial activity of recognising the need for change of some things, or the need to persist with others until further evaluation.
After observing some trends in national life and in some institutions, one is moved to make recommendations for drastic changes. Persisting with the status quo or continuing with a downward spiralling trend in some areas is inimical to progress and a threat to social stability and good governance. In other cases "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
One trend that should now be obvious to many people is for those responsible for setting rules and adhering to them to be the first ones to break them. The examples are legion and we hear only about a few through the auditor general and the contractor general. We probably do not hear about other high-profile ones that are deliberately covered up, sometimes by complicity. There are far too many rules that are broken by the custodians. All of this needs changing.
There is a trend for the political, administrative and technical directorates to be indistinguishable. All tend to speak interchangeably and often outside their portfolios and responsibilities when they speak. Some government ministers, for example, are often heard speaking on highly technical issues outside their expertise and competence. If and when they speak from prepared notes, the statements are so terse and lacking that relatively few people get a clear picture of the issues or problems involved. Happily, there are exemplary ministers who stick to policy issues and give support to technical staff. No change in the latter case should be encouraged.
We are hardly hearing regularly from technical staff in many ministries since the appointment of "information officers". The latter are regularly the ones who bear the burden to explain some technical issues for which they have little or no competence. Apparently gone are the days when we would hear authoritative statements and explanations made by those trained and certified chief technical directors in ministries and departments.
A few technical members of staff do make statements, but often these statements are restricted to unpalatable policy pronouncements the responsible policy makers wish not to make themselves. I urge a thorough review of and change in how technical information is communicated and the role of information officers in most organisations.
There is a general trend not only in government, but also in the private sector, national, community-based, and religious organisations to be exclusive in almost all endeavours. At the crest of the set of organisations are the political parties. They never always discern, even think that there are others outside their circles who can contribute to their programmes which have a national focus. If it is the question of constituting task forces, naming research teams, naming board members or recognising individuals they look almost totally within for nominees.
That is not to say that a few outsiders are not thrown in for good measure to give the impression that there is broad-based involvement. Consistently, the core and over 90 per cent of the selected group are usually members of the clan or enclave. The disconcerting thing is that often spurious selection criteria are applied, but these are never set out. Outspoken independent institutions or people are not included in key national activities since they are often not trusted to "toe the line".
This modus operandi needs changing.
There are variants or subtle forms of this practice of exclusivity. Media houses or suppliers of goods or services are punished or patronised on account of their attachments or allegiances. Many governing bodies, and chairs in particular, have the tendency to seek and accept information or advice almost exclusively from the chief executive officer even though the source may not be always credible. Multiple sources are not always sought.
Henchmen and political activists are often the single source of information for their parties. On account of the excessive practice of exclusivity, many flawed decisions are made with painful consequences for individuals, organisations and the nation. Significant changes in the functioning of political parties in the future are not only necessary, but indispensable for effective governance and social cohesion. The case is true for other organisations.
Some media practitioners tend to be blinkered in the coverage and reporting of events and functions. Often it is only politicians or people well known nationally who get reported. I have seen where the well-researched, informative and nationally relevant content of the speeches of little known but excellent guest speakers is not reported, yet the greeting of the politician who repeats information already known is carried as a major news item. One wonders if young journalists are adequately trained to report accurate, substantive, balanced and relevant statements and views expressed at functions. Excellent reporters there are, but their number is dwindling. The trend needs to be reversed.
The trend towards consensus on the key issues in education is excellent, and there should be no change. On the other hand, there is good reason to change the practice of making education a political football and providing it only with relatively meagre resources. There should be no change in the trend towards making the electoral system foolproof and elevating the primacy of the voter. The negative trends in many of our educational indicators need to change. Let us agree then to change some things and leave others intact.
Many people are criticising the fact that the political parties are making many promises. All over the world the political parties make promises, and it is naïve to think that many would not be made at an election campaign. There are very many negative things that can be changed easily by the political process if there is the will. We should expect the political parties to make promises to change them within current realities.
There should be a change now in the level of political debate to one that addresses strategies and resources. Let us reserve our judgements until we hear from rivals.
wesebar@yahoo.com
Comment