- File
A police officer offers comfort to these two men whose relative was murdered in Spanish Town last month.
Don Robotham, Contributor
THE VIOLENT crime situation is obviously getting worse. No one can dispute this. In these circumstances, it is clear that the argument for a state of emergency is gaining ground. The opponents of a state of emergency are on the defensive. Take a glance at the letter from Bruce Golding (The Gleaner, Thursday October 9). Bruce, strangely silent (or silenced?) on other issues, has suddenly found a voice!
Let us begin by presenting the arguments for a state of emergency. The first point is that the situation is clearly out of control and getting worse. The second point is that, in practice, the opponents of a state of emergency have had to concede the need to establish a creeping emergency. They have had to concede the basic point in my argument that, at a minimum, there has to be a severe tightening of the legal environment in Jamaica.
ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING
This means the following: a new Fingerprint Act to fingerprint persons not charged with a crime; the aggressive use of the Evidence (Amendment) Act to make it easier for witnesses to avoid harassment by the defence attorneys of criminals; the Proceeds from Crime Act, to seize the private property of criminals; a Port Security Act; a Plea Bargaining Act; even a proposed Anti-Terrorism Act, which may seek to curtail attorney-client privilege.
We also need an Anti-Extortion Act, with draconian penalties. We need an Act that allows evidence gathered by means of sting operations and electronic eavesdropping to be acceptable as evidence by the courts.
Call these what you will, one would have to be blind not to see where all this is heading: a creeping emergency. The human rights people and defence attorneys are not blind. I dislike this underhand method as much as they do.
This leads us to the third argument: the constitutionality of much of this new legislation will be challenged, probably right up to the Privy Council. Already the Evidence Act has been so challenged. Right now a challenge is underway to the Fingerprint Act. More is to come. In other words, the creeping emergency strategy is heading for failure in the law courts. It's all or nothing.
The fourth argument for a State of Emergency has to do with what a state of emergency is intended to achieve. It is not intended to 'solve' crime. Nothing can 'solve' crime in Jamaica. No implementation of the recommendations of committees, no special squads, no police reform, no outside assistance, no Comstat system, no new intelligence apparatus, no community policing. Such ideas are just the usual comforting illusions in which, in our desperation, we like to indulge in Jamaica.
Crime has deep, social, economic, cultural and political roots that only medium to long-term changes in the development of the economy, society and culture can 'solve.' But a State of Emergency can contain violent crime. It can help to put law-abiding society on top and the criminals at the bottom, which is not the situation now. It can help us to recover the initiative which we have so sadly lost. Now it is the criminals who are on the offensive and we who are trembling in fear.
POLICE-ARMY CURFEWS
By the declaration of a State of Emergency, civil society will regain the initiative. It will bring the wave of criminality to an immediate halt in the short run. This was the experience in the first State of Emergency introduced by the JLP which, in his haste, Bruce conveniently forgot to mention. This was also the experience in the recent police-army curfews earlier on this year.
This gives the society an essential breathing space to organise and orient itself to win the battle against violent drug crime. However, the editorial in Thursday's Gleaner that said an emergency would bring only a "lull for a few weeks or months" was 100 per cent correct. The key question, therefore, is what we do during this
temporary lull. How do we ensure that the few months so dearly won by a State of Emergency is used effectively and is not frittered away like the curfews have been?
The point of a State of Emergency is to generate a radically different security atmosphere by detaining the seven or 10 big drug lords. These people live uptown, not in the inner cities. It would also deal with the leaders of the extortion rackets threatening to engulf the entire country. It has nothing to do with sweeping up youths in the inner cities. I have repeatedly pointed out that where we have failed strategically in our fight is in going after the corner youths and avoiding the big fish. This, of course, is the easy way out. But a State of Emergency that does not strike at the top would be a travesty.
IMPORTANT MEASURE
So the key is not a State of Emergency per se. The key is how we use the State of Emergency. A State of Emergency is not a panacea. It is one, but only one, very important measure to get a grip on a rapidly deteriorating situation. It has to be accompanied by other measures otherwise it will not only fail, it will make the situation terminally worse. If we are going to introduce an ill-thought out and vengeful emergency then it would be best not to have any at all.
A State of Emergency has to be carefully prepared and thought through. The first thing to prepare is the legal and procedural framework. It must be non-partisan. There must be provision for quasi-judicial review and appeals. It must not, to use the phrase of an eminent legal opponent, "abolish human rights." Everything depends on how we do it and on 'the rules of engagement.' It is not a question of giving 'every police corporal' or even the Commissioner of Police, the right to detain. There must be clear quasi-judicial procedures. If the Opposition, for predictable demagogic reasons, refuses to participate-posing as defenders of the rights of 'poor black people' so much the worse for them! They will find themselves isolated. There are any number of Jamaicans of unquestionable integrity who, in the right circumstances, could be persuaded to oversee the process.
CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR PEACE
The second key thing we must prepare is a large-scale citizen's movement for peace. We already have the embryo of this in the wholly admirable activities of the Peace Management Initiative, the efforts of Rev. Devon Dick, the Rev. Dr Henley Morgan, and others. This is in the finest traditions of the Jamaican church. This urgently needs to be expanded into a mass civic movement of peace and renewal, with a substantial permanent staff.
One of the biggest weaknesses in our fight so far has been reliance on what I call a 'corridors of power' strategy. This has been an approach whereby we seek to influence or pressure leadership of one sort or the other by actions in the corridors of power or by news releases from small pressure groups. But what we need is mass action in the street. Fighting crime on our scale requires a fight of the whole society.
The law-abiding majority has to organise and mobilise its potentially immense social and moral authority. The programme of such a mass organisation would include:
Efforts to divert more resources to the inner city. Increased outreach to young inner city males.
Truth and Reconciliation processes. Real values and attitudes and not the lip-service kind. Pressure to cut the link between politics and gunmen. Pressure to end tribalism and extortion. Pressure to reform the police force. Pressure to introduce reforms recommended by previous committees on crime, and so forth.All of these measures, so badly needed, cannot be implemented unless they are pushed through by massive social pressure, which overwhelms the party and the state. Today, both political parties together command about 20 per cent of the population. We are the other 80 per cent. The problem is that the 20 per cent is organised but the 80 per cent is not.
There is no mechanism at present for the average Jamaican to make a practical contribution to the fight for peace. Many want to make this contribution and we have to build an organisation which can give them this opportunity in an orderly fashion. Absence of such an organisation is leading some of our best young people to jump into a political party where they are immediately corrupted. These young people should be building a civil society organisation but there is none around to build. This will require the provision of substantial private resources.
None of this can be achieved in the present climate of mayhem. We need a lull to seize the initiative, to get the show of civil society on the road, and to firmly establish our authority over the criminals.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
But there are strong arguments against a State of Emergency. The chief fear is that this will lead to dictatorship and a permanent or temporary abuse of the rights of the majority. This objection can be met by some of the measures mentioned. The second argument is that the answer to crime is community policing. This would build better relations with the police and give the police the information to mount successful prosecutions.
But ruthless international drug criminals will laugh at community policing. Second, the problem the police have is not insufficient information. The problem is one of evidence rather than of information. The mountain of information presently on file cannot stand up in a court of law. Few witnesses can be found to risk their lives in testifying against wealthy and ruthless criminals face-to-face in court.
RECOMMENDATIONS LAY GATHERING DUST
Another argument is that the police do not know who the seven or eight big fish are. Yet, on a number of occasions, hints have been dropped that major arrests are imminent. Somehow, these do not occur. A further argument is that the police are inefficient and corrupt and that is why the numerous recommendations lay gathering dust. But it is simply silly to think that the police can be reformed "instantly' as some human rights advocates demand. This and the other "numerous proposals and recommendations" require years to take effect, with the best will in the world. But years are what we do not have.
I do not pretend that the above is an exhaustive account of the arguments pro and con. Obviously, as an advocate of emergency measures, I set out the pro side more strongly. Others should set out the cons better than Bruce has done so that we can examine the issues calmly. But we cannot debate forever. Jamaica is slipping from us.
Don Robotham is an anthropologist who specialises in development issues in the Caribbean and West Africa.
