A.J. Nicholson, Contributor

The leader of the Opposition has been insistent that, notwithstanding the concerted callous criminal operations in today's Jamaica, any legislative measure or other initiative that may be proposed to address the scourge must satisfy the test of strict adherence to the principles of human rights in our country.

Of course, that is in furtherance of the prime minister's reference, coming out of the Vale Royal Talks - and the Opposition leader also addressed the issue - that our citizens may have to consider whether they may be prepared to be inconvenienced as the fight is taken to those who are wed to a life of violent criminal activity.

The public and the membership of the Vale Royal Summit would perhaps have little difficulty in appreciating the logic of both statements coming from the apex of political leadership; for the principles embodied in both statements may have to find meaningful accommodation in the forward push.

Burdens

The law-abiding public inside and outside of Jamaica must, therefore, bestir themselves to examine constructively, the imperatives of both statements in light of the burdens that our citizens are forced to bear, on a daily basis, caused by the persistent wave of violent criminality that threatens the very foundations of our way of life.

I have read that there has been some advocacy for the disbanding of the Vale Royal Talks, the argument being that they represent "private conclaves of the leadership of the political parties".

As Roderick Rainford, writing from rural St Andrew in a recent letter to The Gleaner, observed: "One should see the Vale Royal discussions not as something subversive of wider democratic debate, but rather as an element - and admittedly a strategically important one - in the policy process".

The leaders who meet at Vale Royal, he continued, "reflect the two major organised and evenly balanced political blocs in the country, which must find accommodation with each other". I ask Roderick Rainford to allow me to adopt those words as my own.

Any attempt at forging a consensus at the highest political level on any subject matter is a positive forward step in this country. And yet, our history since Independence is replete with examples of failed and foiled initiatives on that score.

Everest-like challenge

As difficult as that may have proven to be over time, the Everest-like challenge is the forging of a consensus, in this instance for the fight against wanton criminality, among our polarised populace.

The leadership, in that regard, must be provided and driven by the government of the day. The Government must, therefore, ask itself whether its approach, over these nine months or so, has served to "prepare the kind of pitch" that will make such a task more, or less, daunting.

And this is separate and apart from the unyielding attitude that was displayed while in opposition. Leadership at the highest political level may be moved to rationalise, and be prepared to overlook, such an unbending stance. How is the general public, however, to be moved to do likewise?

Questions

The administration is, therefore, obliged to ask itself certain questions concerning how it has projected itself to the public. A few examples may be fashioned:

Have our actions, and in particular those of the prime minister, concerning the Public Service Commission, for example, been of such a character as to pull the general public into a consensus mode, regardless of the outcome of the issues before the court?

Have our actions in respect of the attorney general's chambers and the public service, generally, sent the right messages and signals that are required for consensus building?

How is it, a discerning public will ask, that the individual who unlawfully and unethically passed on restricted information concerning a customer's banking account now finds herself placed at the head of the flagship institution concerned with social development - no less - in our country? Are members of the public not entitled to regard that kind of action on the part of their government as insensitive, to say the very least?

Have our actions been in sync with the words of the prime minister while in opposition, and on the night of September 3, last year, and at his inauguration at King's House, concerning constructive engagement and consensus building?

Public issues

Have our actions and attitude in Gordon House assisted in laying the foundation for that kind of approach?

These are all public issues and there would be others. And the way public matters are dealt with clearly constitutes the means by which the kind of trust that the public must repose in the administration's ability to lead the process of consensus building will ultimately come to be judged.

So, the leadership of the political parties represented at the Vale Royal Summit will, no doubt, find common ground on some issues, if even after much soul searching and lip-biting. That would send a special signal locally and in the diaspora.

The crucial test comes, however, in the provision of the kind of leadership that can inspire our people in the direction of that uphill climb. The administration must ask itself whether it has placed itself on firm ground to take us on that journey.

In the meantime, we contemplate the landscape of the two statements relating to some willingness on the part of the law abiding public to be further inconvenienced; and strict adherence to the principles of human rights.

First, what is the present situation? What, as some in a different arena would ask, is the state of play?

For far too long, the freedoms of the vast majority of our citizens have been under siege as a result of the widespread and violent nature of the criminal operations that flourish within our borders. Our citizens have been "inconvenienced" by a constant threat to the right to life; to their right to move freely throughout Jamaica; and even to their right freely and peaceably to assemble wherever they wish.

This is not a situation in which our people have freely and willingly suspended the enjoyment of their entitlements, or any of them. Too many have been forced to live in an atmosphere of fear and trepidation for themselves, the members of their families and their friends and acquaintances.

Major change

In other words, our way of living as we had come to experience, over time, has undergone a major unsolicited, unwelcomed change. That state of affairs has to be confronted and addressed by those of us who do not welcome this change in our way of living - addressed with a keen eye to happenings of the past, conceding where we are today, and which can be guided only by strong and inspirational leadership.

Second, how are our citizens to view the principles and the observance and enjoyment of human rights? The question should be asked: Are the observance of the principles and the enjoyment of rights an end in themselves? Or are they means to an end?

For my part, they are means whereby we are enabled to live together peaceably, in a just society. Living in the just society is the end result; rules and regulations, including those pertaining to the enjoyment of rights, are means to that end.

Inconvenience

So, the issue becomes: how willing, and to what extent, am I prepared to forego the full enjoyment of some of those entitlements - to be inconvenienced - assuming that there is the probability that this would assist in pushing us towards an existence in the just society.

The matter of 'to what extent' brings into sharp focus the role of those who must stand in the breach between my 'willingness' to be further inconvenienced, and the protection of my rights.

Any actualisation of such an initiative places the members of our security forces in the forefront of the action. Its execution would depend heavily on their efficiency and integrity.

The security forces must, therefore, ask themselves whether the history and culture that has enveloped their operations, over these too many years, inspires real confidence that they would be up to that task.

And the society - the authorities and the public - is required to ask itself whether, over these years, the security forces have received the kind of encouragement and been given the type of support necessary to address that culture.

A contemplation of the entire canvass of the two statements coming from top political leadership should, therefore, exercise our minds, calmly and constructively.

The details of the extent, the management and the operation of any initiative that is contemplated, and its ultimate intention, should be squarely placed before our people in a clear, comprehensive and meaningful way.

Concession

Any examination of the landscape of the two statements must begin with a concession that the full enjoyment of our entitlements is being seriously hampered by the extent of the violent criminal enterprise that stalks our land, and which must be repelled.

It inevitably ends with questions relating to the public perception of the security forces and the protection of our rights.

In the end, then, any meaningful attempt at reaching an accommodation must rest on trust. And not much of that appears to be floating around in Jamaica.

A.J. Nicholson is Opposition spokesman on justice.