The government’s inexplicable dress code is back in the news again, this time because a Guyana Chronicle columnist was refused access to the National Communications Network (NCN) compound because she was wearing a sleeveless dress. This matter has reared its head periodically since the 1970s, when women wearing trousers were banned from going into court. Mrs Viola Burnham managed to get that rule amended to permit women in pants suits (which were very much in vogue at the time) to be admitted into courtrooms. Subsequent to that, many of the outbursts against the code have related to perfectly respectably dressed patrons being refused admission to the National Cultural Centre, because they did not meet the requirements of the NCC’s eccentric notion of haute couture.
It so happens that NCN does even have sleeveless dresses and tops on their advertised list of banned clothing, but that did not stop them from applying an imaginary rule. However, it must be conceded that most of the other government offices and agencies do include it in their dress codes. That notwithstanding, one would be hard put to imagine them blocking Michelle Obama or more realistically, our own First Lady, from entering their ministry because their upper arms were on public view. As everyone knows (except officialdom, apparently) both of them are often seen in public sporting the sleeveless look. In their case it could be reasonably assumed that rank would supersede any dress code; in other words, the latter is only for lesser mortals.
So what is it that one cannot wear if one wants to go into a ministry, hand over fees at a government agency, pay one’s taxes or speak to a bureaucrat, however humble? Well, for ladies, that would include short pants, tights ‒ or, if you want access to the Ministry of Health, ‘thights’, although whether this means you can wear tights up to your knees but not on your thighs is not made clear. In addition the Health Ministry lists straps (no indication of where you mustn’t wear these), midriff or tube tops and anything with indecent language or images on it. For the men short pants; three-quarter pants; trunks; armless vests, jerseys or t-shirts; and clothing with indecent language, etc, are a no-no.
The Central Housing and Planning Authority adds to the complement mini-skirts (do they have precise measurements for these and are security personnel equipped with a tape measure, or is it left to their untrained eye?), transparent clothes, rubber slippers and yes, rollers in the hair.
The dress code is such a universal phenomenon in this country one has to wonder exactly what it is the authorities fear if it is not adhered to. Will an officer in a ministry or state agency become so discombobulated looking at a pair of bare arms or a set of hair rollers he or she will write out the wrong receipt, sign the wrong document or hand over the wrong change? One would not have thought so. In fact it is about what some officious senior state employee or employees regards as setting ‘standards.’ Never mind that very many people in this country, especially if they live in rural areas simply do not have the money for an expansive wardrobe which includes all the items which ministries might regard as acceptable, particularly in respect of footwear. And no code should penalize the poor in particular. In addition, many people in the course of their lives may have little need for a pair of shoes, say, when rubber slippers suit their purposes better.
Conventions with regard to dress change with the times, and along with that so do ideas about what is respectable. Any casual look around Georgetown’s streets, for example, would reveal a great deal of variety and informality; what might be considered formal in a more traditional sense, is reserved for particular occasions, such as a Caricom Heads of Government meeting, to give but one example. Even diplomatic receptions are a great deal more relaxed about dress than they used to be, so why government agencies should be so insistent on imposing antiquated concepts of propriety on the population when it has moved on and the norms have changed, is something of a puzzle. No one, for example, ever equated going to see a junior staffer at the Ministry of Health with a Heads of Government opening session.
There may, of course, be some situations where some form of dress code should be required, such as in the courts; but there it should be a question of ensuring a sobriety of tone in order to maintain the serious atmosphere of the halls of justice. In that instance there might be a case for banning tops which expose the midriff, to give one example, although not sleeveless dresses. For general purposes too, a ministry may be justified in refusing entry to someone in a t-shirt emblazoned with a genuinely offensive slogan.
However, all is not lost. As we reported in our edition yesterday, Commissioner Trevor Benn of the Lands & Surveys Commission said that his agency had taken a decision to relax the dress code. “Most of the persons who are coming here are coming to transact business, pay their leases and so on,” we quoted him as saying; “we must remember too that they are mostly farmers and some would have travelled long distances.” He went on to point out that to prevent them from paying their money to the cash-strapped agency because they had on an armless shirt or slippers or “rain boots” would be “foolish”.
He also adverted to the tropical climate of Guyana, which is a major consideration when applying codes about dress. Sleeveless tops and slippers are infinitely more practical in our heat than a long-sleeved jersey and shoes, which are better suited to a temperate zone country.
One could only wish that the heads of all the other agencies and ministries would follow Commissioner Benn’s example, and take down those silly boards which adorn their gates, and allow their security guards to exercise good judgement and refuse entry in egregious cases, such as to someone in their underwear. Apart from that, let the populace roll in freely to the ministries in their armless t-shirts, or whatever, and renew their licences, speak to officials and pay the Government of Guyana whatever they owe.
