Five Suggestions for Reforming and Improving Book Week
In the previous two notes, we briefly reviewed the history and goals of a national program called Book Week. We tried to evaluate its overall trajectory and current situation based on the fundamental components defined for this event, and we saw that based on this, the sixty-year overall performance cannot be considered very successful.
Formation of various book-centric events
Book Week becoming performative and not widespread
Now, within the framework of the principles and limits defined for this event, and taking into account the existing administrative, financial, and executive constraints, we will try to present a few simple suggestions that can be somewhat effective in its reform and improvement.
Five interconnected suggestions that can be implemented without the need for a new and separate budget, avoiding government bloat and bureaucratic system growth, and despite all current problems and constraints, are:
- A small permanent secretariat
- Assistance in the formation of new civil institutions
- Trust in civil, professional, and public institutions
- Serious avoidance of direct involvement
- Maximum delegation of affairs
A permanent annual secretariat can be established for Book Week, with no new economic or bureaucratic burden. The secretary of this secretariat could be one of the current employees of the Book House complex, and this secretariat would host representatives of professional bodies, associations, civil institutions, and representatives of other governmental agencies throughout the year, every week, for interaction and designing book-centric programs. Efforts should be made to carry out all these programs using legal cultural budgets foreseen in other institutions and ministries, as well as based on the legal and mandatory budget foreseen in the Ministry of Guidance for supporting cultural activities of the private sector and civil institutions. This way, the budget required for Book Week will decrease, and this headquarters will only help these events be carried out by others with support that was previously and separately the responsibility of the government, both in the Ministry of Guidance and in other ministries. It is clear that the secretary of Book Week should preferably not be a government manager who has dozens of other concerns, and civil institutions should choose someone who is entirely and completely dedicated to Book Week throughout the year for this task.
Also, the Ministry of Guidance and the permanent secretariat of Book Week should strive to facilitate the establishment of book-oriented public institutions and the creation of associations for writers and professions involved and related to the cycle of books and reading, thereby providing the necessary specialized, human, and executive workforce for public programs.
Furthermore, government management should accept that programs can be planned and executed entirely and independently by the private and civil sectors, without their speeches and ribbon-cuttings, without payment of bonuses and overtime to government employees, and free from the interference and financial transactions of purchasing agents and administrative clerks. As an example, to evaluate the government’s performance in this indicator, one could examine what share and role various associations and organizations of publishers, writers of different branches, illustrators and graphic designers, editors, critics, journalists, and promoters have had in the design and execution of Book Week programs this year.
Another mental obstacle that is necessary and easy to correct is the belief in registering matters in the name of one’s own organization. For instance, during this very Book Week, hundreds of valuable interviews with cultural figures and publishers are conducted by the Book Week headquarters, but most of these conversations are reflected only in the channel of that very headquarters, and many of these news items are not even reflected on the Book News Agency website or the Ministry of Guidance website, let alone in other news agencies, newspapers, and specialized magazines. Whereas if these interviews were distributed raw and unedited among news agencies and newspapers, the media coverage and reach of Book Week would increase severalfold, other media would have their exclusive news from this national event for free and easily, and the cost and effort of the Book Week news headquarters would decrease.
On the other hand, if the Book Week headquarters accepts that it is meant to be a service provider and a reflector of others’ activities, and not a custodian and operator itself; in that case, it would eagerly cover the programs of other institutions during Book Week, instead of there being no trace of the many programs implemented during Book Week by non-governmental organizations such as the Children’s Writers Association, the Children’s Book Council, and the Children’s Publishers Association, or public institutions such as the municipality, the Art Bureau, the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, and the Libraries Foundation, or dozens of private publishers and periodicals, in the Book Week channel, page, and news agency.
Naturally, such reforms and actions will face sabotage and resistance. Government managers will be accused and blamed for diminishing the prestige, identity, and budget of their organization, and some who have lost their previous interests will spare no effort to find excuses and fabricate cases against the activities of the private and professional sectors. However, if we believe in the necessity of promoting reading, the scarcity of public budget, the inevitability of government downsizing, and prioritizing outcomes over performative reporting, we will have no other choice. To be continued….
