Our anxious, frightened population hopes the PNM-UNC crime talks meet with eventual success – significantly reducing murders, home invasions, gangs, illegal guns and drugs, even white-collar corruption, bringing praise to both parties.
If not, who should be blamed – PNM Government, UNC Opposition, society? Leadership, measured implementation with benchmarks are therefore crucial.
These joint talks should have been held before tomorrow's budget since it is expected some of the proposals may require special funding.
Firstly, the PNM Government should say why and where it found difficulty in controlling and reducing crime. And this should be accompanied with a reliable database. Such information, as a start, will lead to an intelligent, evidence-based discussion and proposals from all sides – civic and political. After all, this is a democratic society where political credibility and integrity matter.
All concerned should know where precisely the institutional, legislative, administrative and operational gaps and deficiencies are. This PNM-UNC exercise cannot be approached as just an opinion-driven talk-shop.
Given our crime record, the population may well ask where the emphasis will be placed: on crime prevention, law enforcement, institutional reform, political and constitutional reform, or all of the above?
The words “ holistic approach” come to mind. There is value in categorising the recommendations into those that require simple administrative action, simple majority vote and special majority vote.
Will white-collar crime be on the agenda too?
What about political realities? For example, briefly, the political party that wins the general elections is constitutionally required on oath to deal with the country’s problems, defend its performance and be held accountable – in this case, on crime. The government is required to use public funds and state institutions to do the job.
Our Westminster system also includes an official opposition not only to scrutinise and hold government accountable, but also to be prepared to have the government voted out and take its place. Opposition Leader Ms. Kamla Persad-Bissessar has recently declared that her UNC party is already on “election footing” towards the next general election. With joint government-opposition proposals, how will the Government and especially the Opposition hereafter treat with crime from the political platform?
At the same time, another “reality” question arises: from the joint crime discussions and, hopefully, agreed recommendations, who stands to gain more? The Government, the Opposition, both, or the country?
The implied political obligation for both government and opposition stems partly from the Constitution: “Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of TT.”(Section 53) Who comprises Parliament?
There are some “bite-the-bullet" issues. Given the serious criticisms by the PM of Gary Griffith, how helpful or unhelpful will Griffith’s presence on the UNC’s crime talks’ team be? Given, too, the strong objections by Ms Persad-Bissessar and the UNC to
National Security Minister, Fitzgerald Hinds, how helpful or unhelpful would Hinds’s presence on Dr Rowley’s team be? Or would such matters be overlooked as “water under the bridge?”
Activist Pastor Dr Clive Dottin was not optimistic. He said: “It could be 18 suggestions or 28, we need constitution reform, we need to look at proportional representation, campaign finance reform. If we don’t have these things, then crime talks will make no difference.”
I am also intrigued by the numerous voices calling for a “new, unifying system of government.” Or is this “anti-democratic?”
It seems that the “democracy” Westminster offers has outlived its usefulness in many parts(more on this soon). Government, for example, has become too unaccountable, immunised and distant from its people.
Dr Rowley himself recognises this when he said last Independence Day: “Some citizens have been complaining that they feel far removed from the government…We as legislators must now acknowledge that there are many citizens who feel marginalised, even alienated.”
Basdeo Panday has been saying so for many years.
Why no change, then? The previous president said, “The people are hurting.” Yes, indeed, the political system is not working for the people. The population yearns for something better. This “coming together” reveals a dream that yearns for fulfilment.
Three weeks ago I wrote here: “There are so many friendly appeals and calls for both parties to ‘join and unite’ on this crime problem…It is really a subconscious rejection of our war-like party system – a nation always at war with itself and a creeping public desire for an alternative way.”
We may then evolve into “a great nation.” There is much work to be done.