Dear Editor,
Your editorial of Sunday, (June 8th, 2008) and Business Page of the same issue adverted to the apparent contretemps between Mr.Yesu Persaud of Demerara Dis-tillers Limited and the Private Sector Commission, and President Jagdeo.
I had earlier listened in on an informal debate on the pros and cons of the remarks made by the respective parties. The observation which most interested me however, was the same as made in your editorial, i.e. that information gleaned from the President’s retort should not have had to be extracted, in whatever awkward circumstances, but could have been laid on the table earlier by the administration in a manner consonant with the principle of transparency.
One of the debaters felt that Mr. Persaud had exposed his flank, and that his timing may have been inopportune. The rebuttal, however, was that importunate as the initial enquiry may have been, it certainly was not a justification for the substance and/or style of the response it elicited.
As noted in your columns, the President should not forget the status of the high office which he occupies.
Indeed the incumbent should be always conscious of the fact that his behavior is likely to be interpreted by many as a model to be emulated.
It therefore behoves the respondent, in such a high position, to remember that in addressing any citizen, he is encompassing all citizens, and that therefore comments should be informed by befitting style, sensitivity, and by as much objectivity that can be garnered at the moment in time.
The sensitivity mentioned would constrain the respondent in question from ‘descending’ from the dignity of high office to the ‘apparent’ other level of the ‘perceived antagonist’, and would preclude the personalisation of what is demonstrably government business.
This pre-disposition to such public intemperance has been witnessed several times before- a pattern of behaviour which seems to reflect, at least, an indifference to the feelings of the citizenry, individually and severally; as well as ignore the evaluation of ‘neutral’ stakeholders.
In a number of instances it engenders the assumption that the citizenry is, by and large, seen as sheep; and it eschews the notion that there is matching and/or superior intellect resident among the citizenry.
When the analysis is taken further, there is the possibility that the ‘arrogance’ alluded to in your columns, does in fact mask deeper vulnerabilities.
Perhaps it is not totally irrelevant to take heed of the following comments by Al Gore in his ‘The Assault on Reason’:
“And in today’s world, it’s impossible to have a well-informed citizenry without having a well-connected citizenry… A well-connected citizenry is made up of men and women who discuss and debate ideas and issues among themselves and who constantly test the validity of the information and impressions they receive from one another-as well as the ones they receive from their government. No citizenry can be well informed without a constant flow of honest information about contemporary events and without a full opportunity to participate in a discussion of the choices that the society must make.”
Perhaps in the final analysis, one of the lessons to be learnt is: to ask more questions.
Yours faithfully,
Anantram Prasad
