There is a distinction between leading from in front and leading from a distance

Dear Editor,

It is becoming increasingly evident that experience in an extremely vertical structure of military-style organisations, does not allow opportunity for effective decision-making, particularly in small developing countries like Guyana, where there have been few situations which have challenged the decision-making capability of that organization, or inspired the concept of consensuality and the practice of teamwork.

This deficiency is particularly noticeable in an opposition party which contradictorily describes itself as a ‘Partnership’. Indeed, not often enough do the pronouncements of the lead partner resonate as a position informed by collegiate thinking. So that common sense forces one to enquire how prepared was this ‘leadership’ to engage, from all reports, single-handedly, on the intricate and sensitive national issue of ‘anti-money laundering’, moreso to the exclusion of the other collaborator opposition, at a meeting at which the former would be outnumbered.

Cynics would interpret this deliberate selection as being only reflective of how the strengths and weaknesses of this special invitee would have been assessed.

From this perspective it is illogical for any single party to be left out of such a strategically critical discourse. Some may well ask: to what extent does this type of reflexive behaviour reveal an egocentricity that is incompatible with the concept of consensuality, and the practice of teamanship?   Further, it projects an alternative governance style even empathisers might anticipate, and indeed bemoan.

There is an obvious distinction between ‘leading from in front’ and ‘leading from a distance.’

Yours faithfully

E B John