THERE exist concerns and accusations that institutions, governmental or non-governmental, are making decisions absent of due diligence. Due diligence requires engaging in the needed preparatory work to ensure that before any decision is taken, it conforms to established standards, including outlined rules, laws, studied respect for the people the decision is directed to and being mindful of the societal impact the decision will cause.
In societies where public opinion is treated highly, institutions will test the impact of any decision (potential or active) through opinion polls or marketing surveys. In politics, government and opposition usually gauge society’s feedback based on polls, outcries or support, including voices/institutions considered influential. In such an environment, is it not unusual to see a decision withdrawn when the public reacts unfavourably, officials come out and provide explanations or resign, civil society takes certain positions and demands certain actions, consequences felt at the ballot, or the court asked to adjudicate.
Being mindful of the consequences, including the cost to the institution and/or its leadership, in dollars, support and image, public relations are co-opted in some organisations to play a major role in influencing the shaping of policies and programmes, aiming not only to promote the institution and its leadership in a positive light, but also to pre-empt and avoid untoward experiences.
It is fair to say that Guyana still has ways to go in accepting the importance of scientific data and/or public receptiveness in influencing decision-making as obtained in more developed societies. That having been said, it does not spare institutions and leaders in Guyana being held by the people to uphold basic due diligence built into the system of management, be it governmental or non-governmental. Guyanese expect the upholding of standards as outlined in laws, rules, honourable customs and practices. And this is not an unreasonable expectation.
Where a political opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, has already made clear that his party “will take back Guyana” as though Guyana belongs to one group and not all, and where the government is perceived– real or contrived– to be unmindful of the due diligence built into the system of governance, it creates unnecessary friction and a breeding ground for provocateurs. Where the opposition, even though fingers can point to it that the due diligence it is calling for it failed to uphold when in government, such outlook or thinking will not help in achieving what are established requirements of the system. Further, where the said opposition has been moving to the courts– by itself or through various individuals– though not absent the stench of politics, it helps to recognise that due diligence allows for the judiciary’s involvement and pronouncement.
What is happening in the political and governmental landscapes has not escaped non-governmental organisations, be it the private sector, trade unions, religious bodies, cooperatives, or club. It is pervasive, gnawing at the soul of the nation, and testing the resilience of the people. It bodes well to pay heed that one of the reasons organisations/institutions have rules/laws for those participating in the association — directly or indirectly — is to ensure the universal regulation of behaviour. The same philosophy applies to society and government, which are seen in laws regulating the management of the institutions of state, the behaviour of those working in these institutions and the citizens, to ensure conformity or sanction those who deviate. Serious attention needs to be paid to the apparent disregard for due diligence, given its importance to our existence. Non-compliance carries consequences not only for social cohesion and national unity, but also for the economy, a trending politics that thrives on vindictiveness and clannishness, and what the people perceive as no regard for them. Though in the past doing business on behalf of the people and being reliant on the people to sustain one’s business was done with little or no regard for due diligence, the absence of wisdom in such conduct ought not to be lost sight of.