Dear Editor,
Reports of, and commentaries on, the communication styles/behaviours of the President and Vice President leave the better informed very concerned about examples being set for audiences and other observers, including of course the Opposition, who in turn would be criticized for their mimicry.
The most recent ‘Press(ure) Conference’ is a glaring example of: egotism, paternalism and authoritarianism – probably aided and abetted by the well-known equivocator who could not possibly deny having coordinated over time more fluent and responsive engagements wherein self-respect and mutual respect were displayed.
For certain the latest production could not have earned applause of relevant foreign observers some of whom would have themselves hosted the local press, and others elsewhere. The latter’s Caribbean counterparts would also be much disappointed at this antipathetic display of public communication with representatives of the citizenry. But most critically must be what youths, students would have absorbed as evidence of so-called ‘caring’ leadership, and therefore invite their parents to explain whether what was witnessed set the standard they must emulate.
Meantime, leaders of private and public sector organisations are left to wonder if the Nation’s Leader actually intended to set a new standard (cramped as it was) for the future.
But the President, his advocate and colleagues would have no moral justification for impugning similar behaviour by their mimics. In fact, they must all pause and reflect on the impact being made on their own employees at all levels – moreso in this age of international social media! Their Caribbean counterparts, as well as employees of invited foreigners must hesitate at the choice of such an imperious working environment. But in the end, teachers may well be left to explain to their more inquisitive students the purpose and substance of a ‘Press Conference’. In the process they, and many others, will also have to explain the substance and meaning of ‘Leadership’, and where feasible recommend appropriate exemplars, hard as they are to identify in Guyana, where exist the counter-productive habit of ‘talking down’ rather than ‘talking with’ – on the derisible assumption that so many of the audience do not know better.
In this connection one wonders how (com) pressed coordinators could bypass the substantive fact that ‘communication’ involves: mutual respect, trust honour, and sharing of individual spirituality. In the final analysis it is not what we say, but who we are that matters. The President’s recent experience should advise not to be (kit) – tricked again into a monosyllabic version of a press conference (?) that all participants cannot share with confidence; and of course the promise of more productive follow-up mistakes should be seen only as opportunities to learn nobody is as smart as everybody. In terms of communication, we should all bear in mind that feedback and respectful confrontation are gifts we share to help one another grow.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
