Who benefits, who loses in the fake certificates saga?

It is really amazing that there were so many workers, in so many thousands, in public service who had no certificates, or held forged certificates. Or could it be that they had no qualifications?

The government has reacted angrily and gave a blanket order, which is: produce the needed certificate or quit employment before May 15 of face prosecution and a possible seven-year jail term!

There are already reports of patients who are left alone in hospitals as many doctors and nurses decide to quit and remain safe from prosecution and avoid further embarrassment. And there are children in schools who have been left alone in classrooms as many teachers quit employment as they happened to be holders of questionable certificates.

I consider it unfair as these patients and children are quite innocent.

Some years ago, a British education psychology professor wrote about the “Diploma Disease” and castigated employers who are compulsive about applicants having a diploma or a certificate and not being able to do and hold down to a given job.

This is exactly what is happening in Tanzania today, hence the certificates hullaballoo.

In psychology we insist that punishment should be effective in changing the behaviour of the wrongdoers. We further hold that punishment should modest, timely, equitable, appropriate, and accurately targeted. In addition, in philosophy we say: “Criticism should leave the one being criticised with a feeling of having been helped.” Furthermore, we argue, a sense of righteousness should prevail.

What is happening in Tanzania today cannot qualify here. Some people being dismissed had two or three years to retire and some had 10 to 15 years left to retire.

Some remaining workers presented fake certificates which they bought in the streets or probably from Necta or some printer.

Some of those being punished had genuinely lost their certificates; or possibly, their certificates got lost. Or, their certificates were reduced to ashes in a house fire. Or they got stolen.

Some could have acquired employment by paying a bribe or some other form of corruption as evidence of collusion between employment seekers and employers are emerging.

Some executives in government knew that some employees had incomplete files but are not being penalised while the hapless employees are being sacked.

We are not even designing ways to avoid similar mistakes in future. We take pride and are happy to dismiss some otherwise excellent workers.

In conclusion, we are using punishment wrongly and irrationally. In fact, for good, competent, and honest and clean workers, the punishment could have taken a more constructive and productive form by making them lose, say, one or two-month salary; being badly publicized; and being given, say, two to three years to put their files in order then, if one fails in that score, lose their job.

That would be more rational, educative, honourable, and equitable. Again, do not use punishment whose net effects are negative to you, such as being forced to recruit and retrain new workers.

On top of that, do not use punishment whose net effect is to punish the innocent victims such as students and sick persons.

Punishment handled badly can result in creating a lot of enemies of the State. Imagine the multiplier effect of dismissing people from employment. That is how you start creating gangsters of unemployed people.

Let us rethink about how we treat some of our otherwise excellent employees and good people for a long time. Let us go the constructive, educative, and empathetic route.

These are the modern human recourses concepts and not the primitive, harsh, impersonal, and harmful approaches of the past.

The author is a retired professor of Educational Psychology and Assessment