The ranks infallibility and wisdom

One often hears expressions like – “even the WHO (or FAO) has approved so and so … which is what we follow”. The local equivalent being “if approved by the Minister/the Cabinet/Parliament/or The President”. Who in turn would appoint a “Commission – Parliamentary/ Presidential to Report” to add respectability or authenticity.

The implication being that the Higher you go, the better the answer. Ask any Airline Pilot or Amateur Flier, who is likely to tell you that “the higher you are, the more likely you are of making a wrong move or a horrible error” I believe it is the Peter Principle (?) which says “In a hierarchy, each man rises to his own level of incompetence” . So, the higher you go …?

I have often been tickled by the relegated sanctity and infallibility implied in “The Cabinet will decide” Ha, Ha!

I have had some little experience on how such bodies as Boards, Councils and Committees function (or malfunction) and love that saying that “a Camel is the product of a Committee that set out to design a Horse”. Parkinson (of P’s Law fame) cites an example (possibly broadly true), of a Board Meeting of a Nuclear Energy Authority. Among the several items to be decided was a Major Reactor extension, to cost Five Million Pounds . This was approved (17 minutes) an expansion and refurbishment of the staff canteen (28 mins) and a proposal to re-roof a bicycle shed (1hour 20mins). The reason was simple. Not a cat knew the first things about a nuclear reactor. But everyone knew about Roofing Sheets, GI Piping and Cycle Locks. All wanted to show their usefulness. So, if each of the 15 members took just four minutes to make their contribution, it leaves the Chair 20 minutes to make his concluding remarks and the Butler to clear the tea cups and half plates. Jobs well done!

I wonder how many of those who duck behind the WHO and FAO as authoritative sources, realise that the WHO hasn’t a single hospital bed, or the FAO a single test-tube, to call their own? This is not to decry their usefulness, but to define their function and rationale. They are there to collate information from all countries, and base their conclusions and advice on them. In this respect they do an admirable job. But the reliability of the source material is key. Bad data cannot generate good conclusions.

In the local context, anyone would have noticed the rustle of papers as each item on the Agenda comes up. The puzzled expressions may suggest that these crucial nuggets are being seen for the first time. From the number of knotty issues that “need to be placed before Cabinet” one may conclude that it is not fair or possible even for a Cabinet of dazzling competence, to give attention and apply their wisdom to the dozens of matters placed before them at each (weekly) meeting. So, each time I hear “it is up to the Cabinet to decide” I am completely “underwhelmed”!

Never having been close to our Cabinet, nor seen how it functions, I can only extrapolate from lesser bodies. I find it an amusing diversion to observe “Board behaviour”. Very broadly, members fall into a few identifiable types. The ones who are clueless either keep their ignorance to themselves and pretend ‘in depth study’ of one paper, or insist on doggedly displaying their profound ignorance. There are at the other end, the knowledgeable and intelligent (Q on the U) ones who keep shut with a face of supreme boredom. When called upon to share their wisdom, they deliver very curt and crushingly authoritative pellets, and quickly go back to “blank face” solitude. The fascinating ones are the middle group, usually ‘intellects struggling to be born’. They mercilessly plod on, evidently having lost track and point, like a blunt pencil. Generally, the time they take is inversely proportional to the light they shed.

Dr UPATISSA PETHIYAGODA