Ian Boyne, Contributor
"This is a task we must undertake and undertake now before we are all destroyed by these criminals. This action is about taking control of communities out of the hands of the criminal elements once and for all. It will take courage and stamina but we have to find the courage and stamina now. We can wait no longer."
THAT WAS Prime Minister P.J. Patterson speaking with all intensity and earnestness on December 1, 2002 in a national broadcast to address the fear and terror many Jamaicans were feeling over the upsurge in crime. Ever so often we have to go through the ritual of some new crime plan, some new initiative, some renewed initiative, some brilliant new set of strategies, some new task force, committee, national broadcast or study to deal with, tackle, confront-whatever-this seemingly intractable matter of crime. When will we really get a grip on things?
The Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence tabled in Parliament on June 11 last year, the latest of multiple studies on crime, has a section, 'Getting to know the How of Solving the Problem of Crime and Violence: Why Past Initiatives Have failed' which is quite instructive. That bipartisan report which was co-ordinated by the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) and which included Derrick Smith and Delroy Chuck, Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) spokesmen on Security and Justice respectively, as well as management consultant/churchman Henley Morgan and inner-city pastor Reynard White, took note of the many previous reports.
But the report makes an important acknowledgement: "If one is to be candid in one's assessment of the situation, the many interventions have not carried through with anything approaching maximum effectiveness to the citizens and communities within which they live". And one year and two months after, this report seems on its way to suffering that same fate unless something is done now to rescue it before it is too late.
INTEGRATED APPROACH NEEDED
The lead story in last week's Sunday Gleaner which quoted senior police officers as saying that Government ministries and agencies did not do their part in the social intervention work in communities is deeply troubling. Especially after the urgency and sense of moment which both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Security Peter Phillips invested in the most recent anti-crime initiative.
No one could fault the Government in terms of the comprehensiveness of the approach which it took with the anti-crime initiatives unveiled in the December-January period. The Prime Minister himself in his national broadcast of December 1 was a model of balance and rationality. In a well-crafted speech, he effectively made concessions to all the interest groups and bodies of opinion in the country. He stated clearly: "There must be a focused, multi-faceted integrated multi-agency approach to the problem. Conditions of poverty, social deprivation, political alienation, victimisation in any form, political tribalism and general inner city neglect and decay as well as pervasive negative values and attitudes all contribute to the crisis. Better and more effective policing is clearly an important part of the solution. But that is not all. That cannot be all."
The Prime Minister in that statement was wooing the vocal, media-savvy human rights activists and opinion leaders who had been clamouring for the integrated approach rather than the "hard policing" approach. The Prime Minister is fully aware that the social intervention programmes are crucial to the anti-crime effort. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Security must be concerned that the present anti-crime initiative escape the curse which the National Committee on Crime and Violence identifies so clearly as bedevilling past efforts. It notes: "The many interventions have not been carried through with anything approaching maximum effectiveness to citizens and communities." Crime cannot be solved overnight. But crime fighting can certainly be assisted by more efficient, focused, targeted responses by state agencies.
CIVIL SOCIETY ACCOUNTABILITY
But not only by state agencies. After the Prime Minister made his national broadcast in December, the Minister of National security followed up with a presentation in Parliament which announced the establishment of two very important committees with broad and impressive representation. One to monitor the activities of the Jamaica Defence Force, about whose deployment on the streets the human rights activists and the JLP had been alarmed, and the other to advise the Ministry of National Security on crucial crime-fighting issues and to monitor the implementation of the anti-crime plan.
Three of the country's most vocal and vociferous human rights activists were appointed as civil society representatives: Dr. Carolyn Gomes and Miss Susan Goffe of Jamaicans For Justice and constitutional lawyer and Chairman of the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights Dr. Lloyd Barnett.
The Consultative Committee on the National Security Crime Plan was supposed to be liaising with the Ministry of National Security and ensuring that the state act decisively on security issues. What has this broad-based committee been doing? If there were aspects of the crime plan which were not being properly funded, supervised or efficiently implemented, why have we not heard anything from this committee of very impressive and powerful persons?
If there are deficiencies in the crime plan it is not just the state representatives who must be called into account. I believe I overheard Susan Goffe's saying on the Breakfast Club recently that meetings had not been held in a while. But this committee of such powerful and vocal persons with important media organs at their disposal must be pro-active and must demand that meetings be held and answers given to the issues they raise. We have a problem as a society not just as Government with implementation. We are great talkers, debaters and bully pulpit preachers, but poor implementers.
JUST A PLAN NOTHING ELSE
The National Crime Plan is just that ... the national crime plan, not the People's National Party (PNP) Crime Plan or the Government Crime Plan or the PSOJ Crime Plan. All of us have to rally behind it. The Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence was signed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Most Honourable Edward Seaga as well as his Spokesman on National Security Derrick Smith, along with Prime Minister Patterson and National Security Minister Peter Phillips. It was endorsed by the PSOJ. The Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence represents one of the finest, most compelling and most comprehensive set of proposals you will find in any report on crime and violence in Jamaica. It is a first-rate piece of work.
What we must do now is to implement it. We must not see the anti-crime plan as a "Government thing". We are all threatened by the high levels of criminality and lawlessness and our prospects for economic growth are being stymied by the fear and dread which crime is breeding. As a society we must insist we must demand that the state agencies deliver the services which they should in the crime-fighting effort. Performance must be given and given now or else people must be held accountable.
But civil society must also be held accountable and those who represent civil society organisations must forget the lame excuses as to why they are not having a greater impact. Either they are taken seriously by the people who appointed them or they should resign.
CAUSES OF CRIME
The June 11, 2002 report on crime says, "A way must be found to engage civil society on the basis of its own self-interest and participation." The report noted that previous initiatives and policies had failed because, among other things, the "communities were not fully engaged; there was little investment in people; the failure of policy makers and implementers to walk the talk; failure to hold the gains; and "Chasing 'the useful many' instead of concentrating on 'the vital few' causes of crime."
The vital few causes of crime and violence in the society which the report identified were:
Excess in policing that breaks down trust by citizens in those who are sworn to uphold the law and leaves a sense among segments of the society that they must look elsewhere for their protection and for their 'justice'.
Political tribalism that leads people to be overly dependent on their elected officials.
The emergence of leadership in some communities that has its roots in political tribalism and the drug culture; and which effectively undermines the traditional leadership to be found in community institutions.
Protracted economic hardships which deny citizens the opportunity of a livelihood, take away their independence of action and make them targets for crime and violence.
Centralisation of authority and power that leaves communities without the knowledge, know-how and legislative arrangements to resolve their own disputes and problems and makes them vulnerable to discrimination and indifferent treatment or service by the bureaucracy.
FIGHTING CRIME EFFECTIVELY
We can't solve crime overnight but there are a number of things we can do. We can speed up the legislative process to bring the urgently needed legislation which both the Prime Minister and Minister of National security have spoken about. We can give the police force the vehicles, arms and equipment needed to effectively fight crime. We can increase the numbers in the Jamaica Constabulary Force. We can step up our intelligence work, our work in protecting our ports, in harnessing the best international assistance in intelligence-gathering, institutional strengthening, training and co-operation in smashing the criminal network.
We have critical work to do with the civil society organisations working with our youth and various segments of the adult population. We have to look critically to values and attitudes. We have to enlist the support of the music fraternity in the crime-fighting effort that is crucial link. There are things which can and must do. And we must not foreclose on any option before we discuss it thoroughly and non-emotionally.
We must also take seriously, for example, Don Robotham's proposal for detention without trial. I know I have lost the powerful human rights lobby on this and set up myself for attack on the most powerful and influential talk shows in the country. We must not wage intellectual terrorism on those who espouse unpopular, "unsanctified" opinions. We must not do the equivalent of burning witches at the stake for espousing heretical ideas like taking away the civil rights of some people to contain a monstrous evil. Yes, we must be careful, and yes, remind us of the dangers. That is why Robotham has called for civil society oversight of this procedure. But don't ridicule and lampoon a person like Don Robotham just because he has rejected the human rights orthodoxy and dogma.
WHOSE RIGHTS?
I ask the vocal human rights lobby so influential in the Jamaican media: Must we continue to allow the big fish to get away just because the force of their criminality leaves potential witnesses scared to death to testify against them and because they can afford the most high-priced lawyers to get them off any charge? How will people give information to the police to put away dangerous terrorists when these terrorists control communities and have the power of life and death in their hands?
Yes, we run the risk of abuses but in an imperfect world we have to make judgment calls. Are you in the human rights lobby prepared to have a serious debate as to whether a nation like this, threatened with disintegration and chaos, is better off allowing the big fish to get away while the rest of us are being swallowed up by criminal sharks? Are you in the human rights lobby prepared to think outside of your box?
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can e-mail your comments to ianboyne@yahoo.com.
