There should be a clear distinction between leadership and development as it relates to engaging the Diaspora

Apr 16, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I would like to build on my letter that was published on the 10 April, 2019 in the Stabroek and Kaieteur Newspapers and which has generated much discussion as well as between myself and many persons, I would also like to make a few clarifications.
One of my friends who is a retired dual citizen and holds a substantive government position, indicated to me jokingly, that he was hurt by my comments that retirees with dual citizenships should be removed from heading government agencies and participate in a nurturing capacity while they hand over the baton to younger professionals. I responded to my friend, who I respect and hold very dearly, that I hope that he is magnanimous enough to have this discussion with me in a dispassionate way because it is a discussion that we need to have as a country. He is indeed magnanimous since we had the discussion; and I promised to write a second letter, clarifying some things. I also sense from some responses and discussions, that some sections of the Diaspora was somewhat unhappy with my perspective on Diaspora engagement.
Firstly, I believe that this is a healthy discussion as we try as a country to move our approach to development from being broad and shallow to becoming narrow and deep. On the point of Diaspora engagement, I also believe that we are confusing leadership and development. The point I am making is that we should not be importing leaders, rather we should be developing our leaders; however, we can certainly import skills and expertise from the Diaspora to develop the country.
As we move forward, there is need for more definition on the programme for engaging the Diaspora. I agree that with a 750,000 population and a fast growing economy, there is need for skills and expertise from the Diaspora and we need those skills now. I also understand this need in the Guyana context, since unlike countries like India, which has a population of over 1.3 billion and plenty of skills to move around, we are not that fortunate.
However, the time has come for our leaders and Government to stop making blanket statements that we don’t have skills in Guyana and therefore we need skills and expertise from the Diaspora. There is a perception that most persons who stayed, it is because they could not have done better; and to use the words of one professional who spoke to me, ‘it is as if everybody who stayed are dunce and that is why they stayed’. Many intelligent, smart, hardworking and honest persons stayed; and a greater value has to be placed on the indigenous knowledge, which they possess. It is that indigenous knowledge that held the country together all of these years and I repeat; a greater value must be placed on that. The country did not fall apart during the difficult years!
As we engage the Diaspora, what I would like to see, is a well-structured and phased programme which imports necessary skills and expertise while at the same time, identify and nurture local talent into improved professionals as well as leaders, Note, I did not say better, I said improved professionals since better in this context, is relative.
One of the major gaps in Guyana is in the area of policy development. One of the challenges we have had from my observations and from discussions with local professionals, is that many persons coming from the Diaspora while they have modern knowledge in a number of technical areas, most of them have not worked at policy or senior executive levels; hence they lack experience in these areas. So while many of them may have Masters degrees and PhDs because there are numerous opportunities in developed countries to pursue advance studies; they do not have the exposure or experience at policy making, national governance, leadership and senior executive management levels. However, there is an expectation from various segments of the Diaspora and a perception from local leaders, that because these persons have academic qualifications and worked in developed countries, they should automatically be placed in leadership and senior level management positions.
This has been and still is a challenge. One such difficulty is that local professionals who are required to work under these persons have to train them (whether officially or unofficially). Those who are humble enough recognize the strengths and weaknesses in these arrangements but for those who are not humle, the local professionals make the necessary adjustments, in many cases to what are essentially activity-driven programmes, instead one which reflect strategic thinking and planning.
After 1992, many professionals returned from the Diaspora to serve under the PPP/C administration and from 2015, a number of professionals have been returning to serve under APNU+AFC administration. The point here is not that we should not bring skills and expertise from the Diaspora, we need the skills but there is need for the programme to be more results-oriented and more impact-driven.
The government has to determine how to establish balance by involving the Diaspora but at the same time developing programmes to create more value from local professionals and leaders. What we need are persons to strategically position the country and develop our competitive advantage.
Where are our leadership programmes to develop the next tier of parliamentarians and management executives? Where is the mentorship and coaching programmes to nurture the next generation of parliamentarians and leaders in other areas of the society?
I must indicate that I applaud the WPA for its response by submitting the name of Tabitha Sarabo-Halley to replace Dr. Rupert Roopnarine in Parliament and I sincerely hope that the President favourably considers this nomination. Not only is this nomination a young person but a woman and she has my full support. Let her go to Parliament; and Dr. Rishi Thakur, Desmond Trotman and Dr. Roopnarine must continue to mentor her. I am stimulated by this response from WPA; she is 31 years old, intelligent, full of energy and vigour and is involved, what more does she need to qualify?
The government must become aware that there is a perception of leadership currently in Guyana that senior levels of political and executive leadership are for retired persons. Let’s give the younger professionals and young leaders a chance to grow and develop their confidence. Someone once said that ‘experience is only what you gain through experience’; let them have their own experience!
On the point of the retired dual citizens or other retired professionals who are heading government agencies, I am suggesting that a comprehensive ‘Mentorship and Coaching’ programme be developed as a part of our human resource development. This will allow them to occupy substantive positions or consultancies, however, in a more nurturing capacity, particularly those over 70 years old.
Young Guyanese professionals who want to come home to serve are welcome but they cannot be working for e.g. in a supervisory position at a bank in a developed country and expect to return and be placed into a position as Managing Director. These are varying levels of responsibilities, accountability and roles. The programme should include an aspect for developing their leadership and executive management skills but also to similarly develop the locals. This has been as challenge as one critically examines our development. For example one of the reasons for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) being developed is that the home –grown Judges have a better understanding of the Caribbean and local context as against the Judges of the Privy Council.
I would also like to add that some persons are of the view that many of us are not friends of the Government, hence we are critical of some of its actions, rather, it is because we are friends of the Government that we do not want them to self-destruct. Many of us would not see our leaders walking over a cliff and remain silent because we are trying to keep our jobs or to be perceived in as favourably. We speak out of love for country.
On the point of our lawmakers with dual citizenship, it is a sign of good character when a leader accepts the benefits and the burdens of his or her choices. Imagine our lawmakers leaving and entering the country on their American, British or Canadian Passports…so they are not even subjected to the very laws they are making…

Yours faithfully,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas

---

---