THE BusinessDictionary.com defines ethics thus: The basic concepts and fundamental principles of decent human conduct. It includes the study of universal values such as the essential equality of all men and women; human or natural rights; obedience to the law of the land; concern for health and safety; and increasingly also, concern for the natural environment.No one can honestly deny that this country is at a crossroads here.
Hardly a day goes by without persons having to confront this matter, and questions seep into the mind as to whether the understanding of ethics is universal. The daily news expose information that the average person knows goes against the laws. The prevailing concern is why some, and not all, are held to account.

Mayor Hamilton Green had, sometime ago, called a national moral and spiritual revival. It may be opportune to re-examine this call as a matter of urgency. To this end, it may be necessary to have ethics as part of the nation’s education and training curricula in the schools and in the public sector. Constitutional education also aids the process. When persons are knowledgeable, they are empowered to conduct themselves in a particular manner, and hold others to like standards.

It is recognized that ethics in diverse societies can mean various things to various people. An analysis done by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer of the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics, of the Santa Clara University in the USA, on the question “What is Ethics?”, makes for good reading. The named persons, in their work, referred to the work of Sociologist Raymond Baumhart, who posed to business people the question “What does ethics mean to you?” Among the replies were the following: “Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.” “Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.” “Being ethical is doing what the law requires.” “Ethics consists of the standards of behaviour our society accepts.” “I don’t know what the word means.”

Reviewing the responses, though representative of diverse thinking and outlook, to preserve and strengthen this society’s fabric and aspiration as One People, One Nation, One Destiny, we must strive to make doing what the law stipulates as universally acceptable and enforceable. Guyana carries the taint as the most corrupt country in the English-speaking Caribbean. Given that unethical behaviour fuels corruption, efforts must be made not only to stamp out corruption, but also the very appearance of corruption.

Guyanese know morally and legally that stealing is wrong, and that a person so accused should be held to account; yet there is no mistaking the duplicity of our actions when we hesitate to ensure that the accused are held to account or that the wrong-doer is stripped of any immunity to account for his actions, given their political connection or influence.

In cases where the accused are placed before the court, the society expects that the ethical thing would follow in terms of accused persons removing themselves from public or constitutional office until at least the matter is resolved through their being vindicated by the court.

Although our common-law system considers an accused person innocent until proven guilty, it is unethical for an accused person to remain in a position — moreso a constitutional one that requires upholding of the law — when that person has been accused of committing an infarction of the law. In other societies where ethics are held in esteem, an accused person voluntary removes him/herself from holding office, or the rules of the organization or laws of that State are enforced.

Acts of corruption constitute not only betrayal of the public’s trust, but violation of the laws; and according to the United Nations, a human rights violation of government. No right-thinking government wants to be so accused, even less so when policies and actions are being expedited to curb corruption.

Confronting corruption is not only reliant on placing persons before the court, but also ensuring that those placed before the court do not hold public or constitutional office until the court pronounces on their moral standing.