By Balford Henry, Senior Staff Reporter 
THE PRIVATE sector came in for some strong criticism at yesterday's sitting of the West Kingston Commission of Enquiry, over its role in attempts to restore peace to Kingston's inner-city communities.
Visiting criminologist at the University of the West Indies, Professor Bernard Headley, made a number of recommendations in a report to the Commission on crime, violence and politics and the July 7-10 killings in West Kingston. He placed the focus exclusively on the Government for the implementation of immediate steps to deal with the problems.
Chairman of the Commission, Justice Julius Isaac, expressed concern, however, that the focus was exclusively on the Government and not on the private sector or, specifically, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) which, he said, had the resources to get things going.
Professor Headley said that there was no "tradition of philanthropy" involving the private sector in Jamaica. He said that the culture would take some time to change and, therefore, the emphasis would have to be on Government to get things going, immediately.
Professor Headley also suggested that the Commissioners recommend that the private sector respond instantly and in a more substantive way to the problems, in their report coming out of the enquiry.
The Jamaican-born Professor of Criminology currently assigned to the Faculty of Social Science at the UWI's Mona Campus, recommended in his report to the Commission as one immediate step, a "bona fide community-policing project" for West Kingston.
He said that, as a solid indication that it intended to change, structurally, the relationship between the police/security forces and residents of the inner city, the Government should immediately put on the ground in West Kingston a bona fide pilot community-policing project.
Professor Headley said that while the Government may not have all the answers, it should be able to provide the resources (financial, personnel or otherwise) to immediately mobilise for action.
In a list of recommendations for what he called "a more peaceful social order," Professor Headley suggested a number of long-term, intermediate and short-term measures.
He said that resorting to violence to resolve disputes, differences and issues -- political or otherwise -- was normal behaviour developed over the course of several generations and reversal would take time.
"That will only happen through sustained, generations-long processes of education and re-education," he said.
In terms of intermediate solutions, he referred to the "lists of comprehensive recommendations related to the matter of political tribalism, reposed by distinguished task forces and previous commissions." He said that what was clearly needed was the political will to bring about change.
But, Professor Headley was very specific in terms of short term recommendations to the Commission.
He suggested that the Government seek to develop partnerships with businesses and philanthropic organisations, to strengthen the resource base of the Ministry of National Security's recently instituted "Peace Management/Social Conflict Intervention Initiative."
He also suggested that the Government seek international assistance in launching peace centres inside the communities of interest, to help residents reduce the incidence of violence. He noted that one such centre was opened last month in the Grants Pen community.
He said that the focus was exclusively on the Government to implement these recommendations, because only the Government has the resources to quickly mobilise responses to national crises.
"If we are talking about immediate kinds of solutions and immediate kinds of recommendation, it will have to fall within the ambit of the national government," he told counsel for the commission, Velma Hylton.
But, Chairman of the Commi-ssion, Julius Isaac asked: Why should the burden fall on the Government? Why not on the private sector?
Professor Headley: Sir, if you go with me later on, as I talk about making these over the long haul.
Mr. Isaac: Immediately, now, in the short term? Why not the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, for example? They have the money. They do. They do. Why can't they not put it out and get things going? This is an answer I want to have some help on.
Professor Headley: Well, I agree with you in principle, but we are talking about very on-the-ground pragmatic issues here...Unfortunately, I don't think we have a tradition of organised philanthropy. I am sure there are wealthy people who give, but an organised tradition of philanthropy built up probably over several generations like in the United States...
He said that although there were bodies which could possibly be mobilised and called upon instantly, he did not sense a private sector's interest. He suggested that the sector would "pretty much have to be dragged and probably sometimes kicking and screaming" into discovering how bad things are.
Mr. Isaac: I simply wonder whether recommendations such as yours don't reinforce the attitude of the private sector to sit back and wait until the Government has failed. This is a question in my mind that I am seeking an answer for.
Later on Commissioner Isaac also questioned the uniqueness of Jamaican Governments providing public "spoils" for their supporters.
Mr. Isaac: As I look across the world, I see political tribalism everywhere. In representative democracies, the party that wins power operates the government in favour of its supporters, generally speaking. What is unique about Jamaica in this respect?
Professor Headley asked him if he had sensed anything unique in terms of the "political cleavages" here?
Mr. Isaac: I am just asking because, you know, in the United States that's how it is...
Professor Headley said that the local situation was a lot more than a party winning power and deciding to make allotments to its supporters.
Mr. Isaac: What's happening?
Professor Headley: It moves further in the realm of what would be the equivalent of ethnicities and I think that Justice Kerr actually made that sort of correlation (Kerr Report).
He said that everything which "pretty much" defined much of the people's life, had the dominant characteristic of the party to which one belongs.
Mr. Isaac: Is that because of the scarce resources? I mean the same thing is true in the United States!
Professor Headley said in recent years in the United States the emphasis had shifted to a silent majority who changed party votes.
Mr. Isaac insisted that when the time came for sharing out the spoils, it was still the party supporters who got it. Professor Headley said that it would be difficult to document that behaviour. He also insisted that there was a difference.
