Ian Boyne, Contributor
IT IS good that some of our most notorious criminals have been recently either taken out or put behind bars. But, what of the large numbers of 'foot soldiers' still at large, and the many others waiting in the wings for recruitment to the criminal enterprise? What plans exist to address them?
Minister of National Security Peter Phillips never fails to remind us that his alleged success in dealing with narco-traffickers is creating an unintended and frightening consequence; It is feeding gang feuds, inter- and intra-community violence and 'unorganised' crime. Dealing with the kingpins and the kingfish in the criminal enterprise is one thing, but providing effective strategies for dealing with the root causes of crime is quite another.
The minister's national broadcast last weekend shows that he is making some of the critical moves needed to fight crime. Increasing the numbers of police on the street, targeting the hot spots of crime, recruiting senior officers from overseas and acquiring up-to-date technologies to fight crime are all moves in the right direction. So is the matter of increasing the role of intelligence in crime fighting. The decision to combine all intelligence units in the constabulary force under the leadership of a deputy commissioner is an excellent move.
The recent legislative moves to strengthen crime-fighting, such as the act to allow plea bargaining, the act to provide easier prosecution and stiffer penalties for extortion and the act to establish civilian oversight of the constabulary force are all praiseworthy and shows that the Government has an acute understanding of what is needed in the war on crime. Not to be overlooked, too, and very critical in the process, is the anti-corruption strategy recently unveiled for the Jamaica Constabulary Force.
That all of these moves have been backed up by concrete evidence that the police clearly have a free hand in dealing with dons and criminals associated with the ruling People's National Party - and that there seems to be no untouchables - has strengthened the hand of the security minister. The pictures and scenes of misguided lumpen women from PNP communities burning Peter Phillips campaign shirts provided a public relations bonanza for Peter Phillips and could not have given him better political and civic mileage if it had been arranged by his political handlers.
The fact that Donald 'Zekes' Phipps, who has declared PNP presidential support for Phillips, is still behind bars and that Andem was slapped with 20 years last week will not hurt the security minister, with whose party these men have been long linked. So, the minister has been on somewhat of a roll.
WORRYING SIGNS
However, there are worrying signs in terms of the sustainability of the momentum of the fight against crime. There are certain socio-economic and socio-cultural factors feeding crime and if these are not addressed systematically, the narrowly security crime-fighting measures being employed - as necessary and as crucial as they are - will prove woefully and troublingly inadequate.
It is now commonly accepted that there will be no lasting solution to the crime problem unless we have enough training and employment-generating opportunities for the poor, particularly the youths. While economic growth is necessary to achieve this, it is not sufficient. Indeed, all over Latin America we are seeing the phenomenon of jobless growth and a liberalised, globalised region which is failing to create adequate employment and social opportunities for the masses.
Not only that. With governments like ours following neo-liberal fiscal policies, there is very little room for expansionary economic policies which would result in significant employment projects or indeed for ambitious social projects. (Nor, are foreign direct investments or local investments creating sufficient jobs) Don't lose sight of the fact, also, that the recent rains and floods have created a serious hole in the budget and with the parlous state of our roads all over the island, money that could be used for social intervention projects will have to go to urgent infrastructural repairs. The fragility of our economy and our security are intimately related.
AVOIDING ANARCHY
There are two things which we are not connecting, perhaps to save our sanity; they are the widespread acknowledgement that we must improve the social and economic conditions of our innercities and the fact that we really don't have the money to do so in the short or even medium term. But, there are some urgent problems of the innercities which cannot be postponed one minute further or else, Bulbie or no Bulbie, Zekes or no Zekes, Andem or no Andem, we are in serious trouble.
Quite apart from the anarchy and mayhem, which is usually released when there is no One Don to maintain order and process, we have the fact of many hungry, greedy and impatient young men who are being churned out in the numbers from the crime factories of the inner cities. Smashing organised crime and narco-traffickers is one thing, but that is only a part of the problem we face. Even if the 'shottas' and youths available for the criminal enterprise don't have kingpins behind them, there are enough guns already in the innercities to keep them employed in 'small-scale enterprises', if not in the criminal transnational 'corporations' or criminal conglomerates. What are we going to do about these youth? What can Dr. Phillips or the Government offer them?
With all the good intentions and will in the world, the Government is constrained by its own macroeconomic policies and by the international environment. An incoming JLP Government would face a similar set of constraints. We can't politicise this major issue of how we deal meaningfully with the challenge of the inner cities. Talking just security measures is misguided and dangerously myopic.
Unless significant investments are made in socio-economic improvements, we will continue reproducing criminals and shottas as soon as we either eliminate them or throw them into jail. We won't be able to build enough prison space for the criminals, even if we are effective in catching them through improved security measures. We have to take a holistic approach to fighting crime and we have to see how our economic policies as well as social and moral infrastructure aid or impede our crime-fighting efforts.
REVERENCE TO THE MARKET
In an insightful paper put out by the International Labour Organisation last month titled 'Macroeconomic Policies for Higher Employment in the era of Globalisation', Professor Amit Bhaduri, note is made of the fact that "the focus of attention has shifted from the high employment objective of the Keynesian era to price stability, especially favoured by the financial markets in the Monetarist era".
Professor Bhaduri mentions how the media have created "a culture of reverence to the market", which puts pressure upon governments to maintain tight monetarist policies inimical to job creation and social interventions. Bhaduri instances "concern for a low fiscal deficit of the Government, rapid privatisation, restraint on wage claims and labour market flexibility. Considerable time is spent expounding the virtues of liberalisation and privatisation".
And in the recent publication The Americas at A Crossroads: Putting Decent Work Back on the Development Agenda, it is stated that, "In many Latin American and Caribbean countries, the current macroeconomic policy regime has succeeded in stabilising prices and reducing inflation, but has not generated sufficient economic growth to sustain employment generation, facilitate industrial and rural development or significantly reduce the region's poverty and human development deficits."
It is this poverty and human development deficit which helps to fuel our crime rate and unless that breeding ground is dealt with, the security measures will fail to stem the crime rate. And, we create a vicious cycle because the more crime and violence we have, the less employment generation will take place and the more the human development deficits will increase.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released an important paper, recently titled 'Why Did the Poorest Countries Fail to catch Up?' by economist Branko Milanovic. The paper points out that globalisation failed to help those countries which were wracked by violence and internal conflict. He disaggregated all the factors why the poorest countries failed to gain from globalisation during the last 20 years, unlike middle-income and rich countries.
The conclusion is significant: One key factor associated with low growth is war and civil strife. The poorest countries have lost on average some 40 per cent of their output through much greater frequency of war compared with the rest of the world - reducing the prevalence of conflict seems to be the first and most important step toward restoring growth.
Enough jobs are not being created and besides, the at-risk youths are not able to take up the jobs, which do become available, because they have little or no training. If we are to move the crime debate forward, we have to look beyond our noses and face some harsh realities.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com
