Hardly can there have been a better and more deserving crop of awardees than those who received national honours at Tuesday's annual ceremony celebrating National Heroes' Day.
Indeed, no one would question the contributions, at the national or international levels, of climatologist Professor Anthony Chen and geologist Professor Edward Robinson, who received the Order of Merit (OM), outranked only by a designation of National Hero and the Order of the Nation (ON), reserved for governors general and prime ministers.
Moreover, the six persons who were inducted into the Order of Jamaica (OJ) are highly respected Jamaicans who have not only excelled in the various fields of endeavour, but have served their country unselfishly and well.
We believe that much the same argument can be made for all the recipients of the other categories of honours and awards, who were recognised on Monday. However, we do not believe that it can be truthfully said that this is always the case, or that the award system has not been open to abuse.
Awards too liberally distributed
There is little doubt of course, that the awards still have great currency and are highly coveted. But there is a concern, shared not only by this newspaper, that national awards, especially at the lower orders, are often too liberally distributed. Recipients have not also developed the depth and breath of achievement to make their induction into the various orders unquestionably enduring.
Or, put another way, we do not sense that selections are always rigorously tested and analysed. Decisions, it seems, are sometimes driven by fancy, a need to mark an immediate, and perhaps spectacular achievement and, sometimes, to reward political friendships and even partisan contributions.
We believe that national awards are important. They provide markers as to the attitudes, behaviour and achievements that the society believes are deserving of a higher order of respect and celebration. In that regard, they acknowledge more than the individuals who are inducted into the orders.
Their integrity must be defended, but can be eroded if they are perceived to be too readily or easily available.
Reconstituting the committees
Our suggestion, therefore, is to bring rigour back into the award process, first by reconstituting the committees that sift recommendations to make them more broadly national and hard-nosed and further removed from political influences.
Second, we propose a drastic reduction in the numbers of awards issued in each category. We might perhaps even decide that certain category of honours, such as OJs, along with the fewer numbers, are issued every three years.
The bottom line is to make the awards far more exclusive, celebrated and sought-after, to be perceived with awe and respect rather than as confetti.
At the same time, we propose the development of a new category of honours and awards, to be issued at the sole discretion of the prime minister at any time he or she deems necessary.
The PM, in the circumstance, may choose, with one of these awards, to mark an immediate or one-off achievement. That would not preclude such persons being awarded a broader national honour, if the keepers of the order determine that the individual's performance or achievement is substantive and enduring enough to be so heralded.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
