Clean criticism ought to be viewed as a reality check
Dear Editor, I am constantly surprised by this still largely unfathomable place. Raise an honest voice about an issue for beleaguered citizens, and officials object. And when they take umbrage, there is this dedication to a ritual that worships an established formula.
First, it is look at how much has been done; how far matters have progressed from prior depths; it should be praised and not be minimized. I agree, though I would have left that for last. Second, the circumstance pinpointed ‒ usually a problematic one ‒ is declared rare, if not inconsequential in the bigger picture. Well, I beg to differ, because for impacted hapless citizens it does not matter how much improvement has been registered and how many successes have been recorded (all utterly praiseworthy), it is only the issue at hand that concerns them. My thinking is that such an issue should have been anticipated and prepared for, through some form of preemptive reallocation of scarce resources. If I put out goods, then I must have inventory and people to welcome potential buyers, channel them, and sell to them. It might be as simple as a form. I struggle to understand what is so sophisticated about that. Third, the now customary chant from officialdom is that those shining a light (like me) are making a flood out of drizzle. That is dead wrong.
I think it is better, more constructive (institutionally) to appreciate that somebody can care enough to step forward and point out shortcomings or weaknesses and accurately so. This is responded to better when perceived as honest advocacy; when it is received as holding feet to the fire (accountability); and when it is focused on pushing for improvement, insisting on enhancement, not only at the institution under scrutiny, but across the board. If not, the unmoving reality is business as usual to the detriment of citizens. I think that for institutions and their representatives, clean criticism ought to be viewed as a sanity check, a reality check, and a gut check. It informs that there are gaps and room for improvement.
My own wish is that there would be no reason to write of missing links, but of positive developments. The record will show that whenever this is experienced or known, I am among the first to sing a sweet song. I like doing so, tone and pitch aside. There is little interest, if any at all, in wasting precious time and space in sounding off to hear the sound of my own voice and feed the ego. I leave that to others who are way better at me than this, and who revel in such immersion. There is no
psychic satisfaction from ‘gotcha ya.’ I would prefer ‘well done’ and ‘keep up the good job.’ If at any time I am found to be exaggerating or inaccurate, I would ask that I be called to task and sharply so.
On the other hand, I exhort my fellow strivers, honest ones, to neither minimize the issue nor take aim at the messenger. Inevitably, both provoke hostilities. My position is: admit the issue; solve it; learn from it; and move on. Do not expend time and energy with defensive postures; none is served; nothing proven. And in the end, nothing is really gained. In all of this, there is this piercing reminder: whichever the sector, whatever the endeavour, the entity is only as good as the last successful delivery. And then that becomes ancient history.
Now, I would go so far as to recommend that the United Airlines (recent) and Johnson & Johnson (more vintage) situations and both companies’ ways of addressing shortfalls in product or service be imitated. They are 1) issue an early mea culpa; 2) make a commitment to research and address the matter; and 3) welcome more comments, so as to enable ongoing enhancement. The lessons are that defensiveness and de minimis mindsets are not conducive to self-improvement and image. Worse yet, whether government or private sector, do not denigrate-neither frontally nor subtly, the citizen, tribunes. They care. This one does.
Last, here is a poignant reminder for all official objectors: if it was not for determined fearless bystanders (those who took videos), there would still only be the official postures of self-defence, fear for life, and justified homicide in police shootings elsewhere and every time. Yes, there are all kinds of procedures and training, but there were those stark undeniable realities, too. No further comment should be needed as to why messengers are needed, honest ones.
Yours faithfully, GHK Lall