We are taught not to judge a book by its cover for the simple reason that we do or tend to do that. It’s very superficial, but sight is a powerful sense.
Opinion by Conway Tutani
Yes, the first impression is the lasting impression, but not necessarily the correct one.
“I hate it because I get judged by my looks. They tell you nothing about me. I’m fat, but I don’t pig out like most people think,” said one woman who was genetically predisposed, inclined or wired to obesity. Said one blogger: “I hate it because I know so many people and things that are so much more than meets the eye.”
Judging by appearance on first sight produces a lot of the unnecessary resentment, conflict and even hate in the world.
Just to give you a sense of this, last I week I wrote quite uncomplimentary things about Dairibord Holdings pertaining to corporate social responsibility based on what I had been seeing, not knowing, based on sight, not knowledge. The danger is that what one might be seeing is not necessarily the complete picture. I took Dairibord to task after observing over a long period their vendors — including women — some with tattered uniforms — pulling ice-cream carts well into the night in an area infested with robbers, and from that, I touched on other labour and public relations issues.
Before delving into the matter, I started with a caveat: “I stand to be corrected . . .” — an admission that certain facts were still unknown to me and that I could be wrong.
But this can be meaningless when weighed against the potential or actual damage done. You can’t totally separate your role as a writer/columnist from everyday life. Yes, journalists must also climb down from their high horses.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Notwithstanding the need to defuse the bomb before it explodes, in the interest of balance, accuracy, fairness and truth, I must point out the many positives going on at Dairibord. What might seem perfectly fair from one perspective can or always turns out unfair from a different one. It’s not about insulting people or to show how stupid they are and how clever you are.
As they say, the devil is in the detail — which I didn’t have and was supplied with by the Dairibord top brass after they engaged me in a face-to-face following the publication of last week’s article. After the meeting, I emerged with a fuller understanding of the organisation. The vendors are certainly not the best face of Dairibord, but they are its most visible interface with the public. It was explained to me that the vendors are not full-time employees, but hired on commission basis and thus would maximise their working hours to maximise their commission, even to the extent of refusing to be picked up with others at designated points and times to return to the factory. While these vendors wear company uniforms for brand recognition, Dairibord has no control over their working hours.
When Dairibord tried to organise them in a systematic way, they resisted, citing labour regulations pertaining to their status, so I heard. People won’t see this distinction; what they see is what they take in. It’s not the best of arrangements, but that’s the way it is at Dairibord and many other companies. I hope this has set something in motion. But there is more, much more, than meets the eye. The organisation has a robust, focused corporate social responsibility programme underpinned by sustainable community investment. They have an Education Trust run by independent trustees. Children of non-managerial staff are also catered for and needy and promising students from wherever in the country are sponsored at several local universities, with nearly 60 having completed their studies last year.
Dairibord are members of the Business Council on Aids.In-house counselling and 100% medication are provided freely. All this is verifiable – and I was invited to do so myself independently.
This can be complemented by initiatives from the people themselves. People are not earning sufficient extra money to cushion themselves against even modest price increases. Instead of being mere crybabies, citizens themselves can group along the lines of Occupy the Boardroom in the United States. Described as “one way to help the 1% understand the plight of 99%”, the group organises a letter-writing campaign from lower-income Americans to CEOs of large firms such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. By early December last year, 8 000 such letters had been despatched. This has been described as illustrative of direct democracy at work.
Here, the marriage between the political establishment and big money — especially after the discovery of diamonds — has seen the ordinary person increasingly marginalised and voiceless.
So, what chance for direct democracy with the control freaks armed with the Public Order and Security Act and other repressive laws designed to stop people from organising independently?
What chance of writing to CEOs of diamond mining firms and not be deemed subversive?
