ÊTRE RESPONSABLE NE SIGNIFIE PAS ÊTRE RICHE. ET DIRE NON NE SIGNIFIE PAS ÊTRE ÉGOÏSTE (Par Dr Babacar Fall)
In Senegal, there's a reality that's rarely discussed: as soon as someone is appointed to a position of responsibility, the demands begin. A director, a department head, an elected official, an executive, a manager… sometimes becomes, in the eyes of some, someone who should be able to solve all the financial problems of those around them.
And yet, behind the title, there is simply a human being, with a salary, expenses, a family, plans and limitations.
Being a hospital director doesn't make me a multi-billionaire. Being appointed to a position of responsibility doesn't transform my salary into an unlimited fund for charity. I can help when I have the means. I can support, guide, and share. But when I don't have the means, I also have the right to say no.
And I even think that we need to rehabilitate the "NO" in our society.
Because an honest "no" is better than a "yes" that leads to debt. A responsible "no" is better than a "yes" obtained at the cost of sacrificing one's own family. And above all, an ethical "no" is infinitely better than a "yes" financed by resources that don't belong to us.
There is a line we must never cross: using public resources to satisfy private demands.
When you hold public office, public funds are not your own. The resources of the state, a hospital, or an institution are not your personal property. They are intended for the public good. Misusing them to meet the demands of your relatives, friends, or acquaintances is not generosity: it is an ethical, administrative, and potentially criminal offense.
And the most paradoxical thing is that those who make the most demands are not always the ones who will be there when the consequences arrive.
Today, some might say:
"You're the manager, you should be able to help."
"You have the means."
"You never give."
"You've become too difficult."
"He only thinks about himself."
But tomorrow, if an investigation reveals wrongdoing, the same people will very easily be able to say:
"We didn't know he was doing that. He disappointed us. He shouldn't have stolen."
That's the whole hypocrisy of the system.
We cannot demand that someone satisfy our needs while implicitly asking them to respect the rules.
We must therefore learn to distinguish between three things: solidarity, social obligation, and corruption.
Solidarity means helping when you can.
Social obligation is that feeling which sometimes pushes us to help even when we cannot.
Corruption is breaking the rules in order to have the means to fulfill that obligation.
And between the three, you have to know how to choose.
Personally, I prefer to be seen as someone who "doesn't give much" but sleeps soundly, rather than as someone generous whose generosity is funded by other people's money.
I would rather disappoint someone than betray a responsibility.
Because ultimately, being responsible doesn't mean having the means to solve everyone's problems.
It also means having enough courage to say:
"I understand your need. I wish I could have helped you. But I don't have the means. And I'm not going to go into debt, sacrifice my family, or break the rules to meet it."
This is not selfishness.
It's a matter of responsibility.
That's integrity.
And sometimes, it's the healthiest form of freedom.
Dr. Babacar Fall
Director CHRAMFS
Commentaires (7)
Il a accueilli chez nous ses neveux lors de leurs études à Dakar qui sont devenus de grandes personnalités mais ne passaient même pas le saluer après et ses sœurs des qu’il est décédé cherchaient l’héritage qu’il a laissé pour vous dire que pour vivre au Sénégal 🇸🇳 en paix il faut pas calculer les gens et être ferme car tout le monde est profiteur jusqu’au jour où tu es dans la merde tu vois plus personne !
Pour un employé du secteur privé ou pour un haut fonctionnaire ayant suivi une carrière normale, la voie que vous indiquez est la bonne et nécessite de faire preuve de caractère.
Le problème survient malheureusement pour les postes de direction d'agences ou de certaines sociétés nationales dans lesquelles une boîte de Pandore a été ouverte qu'il sera difficile de refermer.
Beaucoup de ces postes sont pourvus sur la base de considérations électoralistes. C'est à dire que la personne a été nommée plus du fait de ses compétences sociales que techniques. Or si vous avez été nommé grâce au soutien de votre famille, de votre quartier ou de votre ville, il vous sera extrêmement difficile de ne pas céder à la corruption parce que les gens vois implicitement soutenu pour avoir un retour d'échelle. Si vous ne retournez pas l'échelle, ils ne vous soutiendront plus et quelques moi après vous recevrez votre de décret de limogeage.
Donc tant qu'on aura ce système de nomination basé sur des considérations sociales dans certains domaines, il sera difficile d'appliquer votre principe.
Mais pour les autres, il faut effectivement faire preuve du caractère nécessaire pour ne pas céder.
❤️
On a besoin des dirigeants comme vous.
Nous comptons sur des personnes comme vous pour la transparence mais aussi pour la transmission du bon comportement et de nos valeurs.
Participer à la Discussion
Règles de la communauté
💡 Astuce : Utilisez des emojis depuis votre téléphone ou le module emoji ci-dessous. Cliquez sur GIF pour ajouter un GIF animé. Collez un lien X/Twitter, TikTok ou Instagram pour l'afficher automatiquement.
Se connecter
Commentez avec votre profil, votre photo, et soyez averti des réponses.