Stephen VasciannieSINCE THE major newspapers and prominent members of the Jamaican private sector have taken to articulating their disgust at the level of crime and violence in Jamaica, the reactions have been fast and furious.
Generally, this is quite understandable: after all, crime and violence affect us all in several different ways, and, with varying degrees of risk, all law-abiding Jamaicans face the prospect of becoming victims one day.
One level of reaction to the private sector/media pronouncements is predominantly cynical. The argument of the cynic goes something like this: "Look, crime and violence have been out of control in Jamaica for umpteen years. Why should we become any more concerned simply because some rich people now realise that the wolf is at the door?" And there are variations around this theme.
Thus, there are those who posit that the private sector/media pronouncements are meaningless not only because they are years too late, but also because they point to no specific solutions: what's the point of having the private sector simply crying in the wilderness, asks this perspective.
Alternatively, yet another cynical perspective is constructed on particular features of the main protagonists on the private sector side. So, we are told that Bigman X has decided to speak out only because he wishes to fatten his overstuffed nest even further, or because some tief mash him corn, for a change. Or, the cynic adds, Bigman Y has belatedly found his voice against crime as part of some unspecified scheme to enhance his position vis-a-vis FINSAC.
How are we to assess such reactions? Quite frankly, I have no means of assessing the 'true' motives of those who have decided to stir the Government on the question of crime and violence. They may, or may not, have objectives which stretch beyond the frightening fact that over 600 people have now been slaughtered since the start of the year. But, so what if they are proceeding on a foundation which includes ulterior motives?
The important point is that they have touched on a raw nerve of reality, and so, irrespective of considerations which are extraneous in these circumstances, we should support private sector determination to keep Jamaica's proclivity to violent crime literally on the front pages. By highlighting crime and violence in this way, the private sector will no doubt embarrass the Government and the police, at least in the short run; but, that is neither here nor there.
The cynic should realise that massive publicity is better late than never, because, with publicity, there is the chance that the authorities will be stirred into action. By contrast, if we bury our heads in the sand or accept the notion that small decreases in some forms of crime and violence are points for self-congratulation nothing but further mayhem will greet us down the road.
A second set of responses to the private sector initiative concerns the question of responsibility. The line of argument here, offered by the Minister of National Security and Justice, among others, is that we are all responsible for the level of crime and violence, and that therefore we should all make our contribution to fight criminal activity in this period.
Fine, but what does this really mean in practice? Some law-abiding citizens have been cornered into paying money for extortion? One wonders whether these persons have any degree of freedom in dealing with this situation: if you don't pay, you are likely to suffer grave damage or death, and, in this context, you are not irresponsible if you comply with criminal demands.
Or again, the responsibility thesis, if it is to be more than a line of platitudes, is hardly likely to take us out of the crisis. Every person working diligently at his or her job is, in a broad sense, contributing to a better society, and is helping, albeit indirectly, to tackling the crime problem. Our tax dollars pay for the police force and army, our guidance and acts of kindness may keep a young person on the straight and narrow, and our public comments in church, school, and in the wider society may influence others to operate according to principles of honesty and decency.
Dalley's folly
But, to be sure, we are not, in the main, experts on crime fighting policy or on strategic initiatives. We elect our Government to provide solutions for crime and violence (among other things). And so, we have every right to say that as part of their primary responsibility in this area, the Government should gather the wisdom of our sociologists, criminologists and others with expertise, in order to solve the problem. In this context, talk of our collective responsibility seems to be an attempt at diversion from the obvious fact that those with power and authority need to take the lead role in forging solutions.
Finally, among the reactions to the private sector initiatives, the veiled and illogical threat emerging from Minister of State Horace Dalley is most disconcerting. Arguably, reasonable persons may differ on whether heavy publicity about crime at this time will redound ultimately to the benefit of the nation. And there is scope for the view that, in some philosophical sense, we are all responsible for crime, for collectively we tolerate a society which is rapidly reproducing criminals, by poor socialisation, predatory politics, donmanship, joblessness, and indifference to poverty.
But it is difficult to understand Mr. Dalley's construction of castles in the sky. In his brain, and I pray, only in his brain, there is the notion that people in Jamaica have been clamouring for attempts to suppress crime through methods from Chile and Singapore that disregard human rights, to put it mildly. So, the Minister of State explicitly raises the spectre of public flogging, and implicitly suggests that some of Pinochet's nefarious methods may also need to be applied.
Why didn't Mr. Dalley mention Barbados as a model? Or, for that matter, even New York which has witnessed a marked decline in several areas of crime and violence without any significant curtailment of human rights? It may be that Mr. Dalley was acting on his own initiative, and that no one with real authority in Government wants a State of Emergency or any restriction in human rights at this time.
But he could be a stalking horse from the stable of fascist solutions... Dalley's folly should be rejected out of hand.
Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.
