Dear Editor,

I am convinced that I won me a place in the black book of my superiors when during a conference I lashed out at a seemingly flourishing practice of being called out of a line and “sorted out” by someone who… say works in a bank. This flack was made during a discussion exploring how we could take back Jamaica from the clutches of crime and corruption.

Who didn’t feel that I was picking on bankers, expressly vented the view that they saw nothing wrong, not being prepared to give up that privilege — gained at the expense of those who were waiting before — or there were those who were just too embarrassed for me, for my “inappropriate” outburst. But there are good reasons why I did this.

Let me suggest that the paradigm within which one will so disregard so many others, in getting a “bly” in the bank, is the same paradigm in which the police will be bribed; where there will be tax and custom frauds; where, pressed by the expediency of getting out of an unfavorable situation of life, established rules or laws will be violated.

This is not to suggest that all persons who take favours in the bank are tax frauds, or even that persons who do comply with certain established social rules will never commit some kind of fraud. I am simply going off what might be deemed reasonable, and I am concerned on a few counts about those of us who take “little favours”.

The first challenge is that the need for a favour exists usually because something is wrong. And instead of becoming engaged in finding a solution, which will benefit everyone affected, I simply do something that benefits me — I break a line.

Another problem that I have with this is that I simply make matters worse for the masses when I take my favours. Not only are people sentenced to long lines, but they must also suffer the further indignity of being made to feel unimportant in view of this discriminatory treatment.

In view of the above-mentioned disparity, people will tend to move towards levelling the playing field. And with the usual “inability”, or unwillingness of the appropriate powers to enforce the rules, people tend to violate rules where they can. So one violation breeds another violation — my third challenge.

There is enough fuel to rant on with a few more challenges, but let us change gears and seek to identify the problem here. The problem is that we are operating within a paradigm of selfishness.

The solution is that we need a new paradigm based on the Golden Rule — simply doing unto others what you would have them do to you. And if there is one word that would capture the essence of how the Golden Rule works, that one word is respect.

This is a virtue that seems all but dead to our society these days. The way politicians relate to each other when discussing the country’s business — no respect. The way politicians relate to the citizenry, as if we work for them and not them for us — no respect. The way… I think you have the idea.

We must look at even how we formulate rules and ensure that they are founded on the principles of respect and not preference to a favoured class, for it is only natural that steps will be taken to level an uneven playing field.

The ideal Jamaica would therefore see the widening of the respect threshold to invest in all our citizens and residents a much higher basic level of human dignity.

The bank seems an innocent place, and by any stretch of the imagination, the least of our problems. But the new paradigm will… yeah must, be so far-reaching as to change the very way we do business, even in a bank.

Charles Evans

charock01@yahoo.com