Why Don't We Study Decisions Before Issuing Them?

The recent announcement by the Ministry of Education regarding the cancellation of a large number of transfer decisions, following a review of the humanitarian and social circumstances of teachers, is indeed commendable and worthy of appreciation. This is especially true given that the ministry could have avoided the ensuing concerns, visits, meetings, and headaches that arose when large numbers of teachers protested their transfers to locations far from their residences. Citing humanitarian and social conditions, as stated in the cancellation decree, the ministry understood the grievances and, through the appeals process, decided to reverse the transfers of a significant number of teachers and return them to their original schools.

My gratitude goes to the Minister of Education and to the relevant authorities who handled these appeals, which had logical grounds, opened the door for re-evaluation, and did not treat the issued decision as immutable. This aspect is of utmost importance, and we hope that other government entities in the country will follow suit, recognizing that reviewing a decision is never a sign of weakness, but rather a responsible administrative practice that should become a standard approach.

This positive step raises a pertinent question: Why do we wait for objections, along with the accompanying uproar, anger, reviews, concerns, and loss of officials’ time, only to discover shortcomings in some of our decisions? Why don’t we study all dimensions of a decision before issuing it, rather than being forced to address its consequences after implementation? A decision to transfer a teacher may appear on paper as merely an administrative measure (as in other decisive decisions) to fill a shortage in a school, but in reality, it goes beyond that. Like any other decision affecting the humanitarian and social aspects of those involved, it carries significant weight.

I have written repeatedly that we are not only required to handle decisions well after they are issued, but also to craft and formulate them properly before they see the light of day. Why isn’t there a clear mechanism for studying important decisions from all angles, through a committee comprising specialists, experts, and representatives of the affected groups? A committee that does not merely convene to rubber-stamp decisions, but to engage in genuine brainstorming, scrutinizing the decision from every angle, identifying its loopholes, risks, and unexpected outcomes. We should ask who benefits and who suffers, what alternatives exist, and what the humanitarian, social, and economic impacts are, as well as people’s capacity to adapt to the decision.

To study any decision from all its aspects and to anticipate all possible scenarios for its implementation, why don’t these committees include individuals tasked with challenging the decision and identifying its weaknesses, even if they personally support it? We do not need committees that agree on everything; we need diverse minds before a decision is made, so that people do not disagree with it after its issuance, thereby avoiding unintended consequences, particularly in the social and humanitarian spheres.

It is not required to back down in the face of every objection, nor should individual circumstances become an obstacle to the public interest. A just decision is not necessarily one that pleases everyone. What I mean is that any decision should be based on objective study, balancing the public interest with deserving individual circumstances, ensuring that the harm caused is minimized. Listening to the public should be an integral part of the decision-making process, rather than always occurring after the decision has been made, thereby reducing the need for appeals, reversals, and amendments.

The true prestige of an institution does not come from clinging to every decision it issues, but from public trust in the fairness of its decisions and its ability to correct them. Thank you to the Ministry of Education for this step of review, and I hope it evolves into a general governmental culture, rather than being celebrated as an exception whenever it occurs. Admitting and correcting a mistake is a virtue, but it is even better to think carefully before making a mistake in the first place.

It is commendable for any government entity to retract a decision that proves to be unjust or harmful. However, it is even more important and desirable to carefully study such decisions before issuing them, so as to avoid the need to withdraw them after they have sparked concern and objections and disrupted people’s lives. The problem with many of our decisions does not necessarily lie in their objectives; the goals may be sound and the intentions good, but the flaw sometimes lies in the means used to achieve them. Iqbal Al-Ahmad