in several articles, i have reflected on my banking career, not out of pride, but because of the deep psychological, cultural, financial, and personal impact it has had on my life. even today, i continue to draw on the depth of that experience, which began in the mid1960s and ended in the mid-1990s.
i was in my late teens when i started working at the bank. my position was the most junior, and accordingly, my salary was the lowest. nevertheless, i advanced quickly, and by 1970, i was appointed manager of the bank’s largest branch, becoming the youngest person ever to hold that position.
all of this allowed me to participate in board meetings along with my fellow employees. due to the nature of the relationship between the board of directors and senior management, we were often frustrated and embarrassed when our requests for banking facilities on behalf of clients were rejected. their decisions frequently surprised us, especially since we felt we were more professionally qualified than them in banking matters.
however, the days that followed often proved us wrong. time and experience revealed the wisdom behind the board members’ decisions. despite their modest formal education, they possessed remarkable insight and extensive life experience.
i resigned from the bank after that and devoted myself to my own business, but i returned in the early 1990s as a board member. i now found myself on the other side, the side i had once criticized when i was part of the senior management, believing it failed to appreciate our efforts or understand our opinions, often without offering any justification.
at the time, i believed that if i were in the board’s position, my decisions would be more in line with those of the management. however, from my very first day on the board, i realized that my perspective, actions, and decisions had become naturally more cautious and less inclined to meet management’s demands, which were often driven by the desire to maximize profits without fully considering other factors. the general view i had as a board member was entirely different from the view held by those in senior management. rome beneath the olive tree is not the same as rome at the seat of power.
with the successive government decisions to revoke the citizenship of various groups, and the resulting complex problems faced by these individuals, their families, and those who interact with them, many of those affected, along with their sympathizers, began to voice their frustration over the hardships they face, holding government officials responsible for their suffering.
what they may not realize is that the officials who issued these decisions are undoubtedly viewing the situation from a broader perspective, one that is far removed from that of the ordinary citizen, who bears no responsibility for national outcomes. this situation closely mirrors my own experience in bank management, when my colleagues and i viewed the decisions of the board as strange and illogical.
this is similar to how we often form quick, and often inaccurate, judgments upon hearing about a heinous crime. yet, in time, the courts, after careful review at various levels, may acquit those whom the public had already deemed guilty. the courts arrive at their decisions from a different vantage point, one that is not shaped by hearsay or emotion.
in my article titled “revocation of street names” published not long ago, i tried to shed light on these considerations. but few took notice, perhaps due to my own inability to clearly present the full picture.
i am not trying to downplay the seriousness of the issue. it is, by any measure, a difficult situation. but we must place our trust in those responsible for making such decisions. they see things from a perspective we cannot, with greater clarity and context. in the end, time will reveal the wisdom or the flaws of their choices.