CHANGE is a constant in human existence. Making decisions to effect change, be it in one’s personal life, an organisation, or a major system in government, are necessary for growth and development. In the political realm citizens vote not only with the desire to re-elect an incumbent or change a government, but also with expectation that whoever wins, their lives and the society will change for the better, albeit the rhetoric or fear of doom expressed if the party of choice lost. Perception held that effecting change for the better is difficult because there are personnel who served under previous administrations that are still employed, may only have merit in as far as it is nurtured through inaction. Accepting this thinking ignores the fact that managed change requires a vision, emerging from a philosophy/belief to achieve desired goals.

Where the policy maker holds such a vision, constructing its framework requires collaborating with the technical and administrative personnel in helping to craft a programme. That identified programme will require approval, followed by implementation. Implementing a programme calls for the development of major job objectives of each department and individual. It is upon these completion of jobs assigned that individual and departments are being appraised to determine whether they have confirmed and delivered on what is expected of them.

Addressing the citizens’ desire for a professional public service acknowledges that not only an individual’s academic qualifications which are brought to the job that matters, but an understanding of the role in making the department or ministry achieve its objectives. An appreciation of this would recognise that political association, though a fundamental right, is immaterial to the ability to deliver within the confines of the laws and meeting deadlines in the execution of task in every sphere of activity.

Where our society has lost too many professionals to the politics of association, denuding the professionalism of the service and contributing to brain drain, reversing of this unwise approach to governance constitutes change. Outside of the traditional public service, the teaching and nursing sectors were affected by the irresponsible policy of the former administration as flippantly adumbrated by a minister to ‘let them go, we’ll train more.”

For instance the services provided by the Ministry of Public Health, including its sourcing and storage of medical supplies, continue to attract condemnation by citizens, some of which are not undeserving.  Though it is acknowledged, some of the deficiencies were inherited and improving the service requires a vision that would factor-in long, medium, and short term plans.

At the same time policymakers have to be cognisant of the fact that a public who relies primarily on the state-funded healthcare system will be less inclined to accept the view that poor performance or undermining of the service has to do with retaining personnel who served previous governments.
The Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation continues to experience an overload of patients coming from outlying regions for services not provided at the healthcare institutions in their region.  It may be opportune for the national budget, which takes on a board national plan to give consideration to improving services in outlying regions such as the New Amsterdam Hospital, which can attend to residents in the Berbice region.

In similar vein, in the education system the present critique and review of the curriculum and calling on students to explore more elective paths, bringing about the change required for the formulation of a vision by the policymaker that will lead to a programme and its implementation.

Every citizen is important to Guyana’s development and it requires that each feels this way and is treated likewise. Whereas in the past policies were made to ensure an uneven playing field and denial of equal opportunities, deviating from such divisive practices will bring about change for the better.

The focus on making decision because it is the correct thing to do, after looking at the options and available facts, would see actions driven by principles not personalities. It will also accept that no person or group has the monopoly on knowledge, and in the presence of this, accepting criticism and being able to engage in self-critique are functions of change that would bring about growth and development in the nation’s body politics.