Robert Buddan, Contributor
GONE ARE the days when we debated the capitalist and socialist models.
Today, we debate how best to achieve sustainable development that balances human rights and human development. But even as we do so, development thinking is changing. We are discovering from experience that national security must be integral to any development model although security has never been explicitly recognised in any model of development beyond a statement of the need for 'law and order'. Current thinking tends towards the position that neither markets (the liberal democratic emphasis) nor people (the social democratic emphasis) will grow or develop until societies contain crime and violence when they threaten to unravel development.
Markets cannot grow in an insecure environment and people cannot lead long, healthy and productive lives if they are not safe. The market model and the people-oriented model do not offer the solution to security in their own right. Both need a national security programme that creates a safe and secure environment. Ministries of economic development and finance have been thrust into the forefront by the turn to market economies since the 1980s. Ministries of education and social welfare have had greater expectations of them with the emphasis on human development since the 1990s. It is now clear that ministries of justice and national security must be major platforms from which to address human security as a condition for human rights and human development.
SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT
It used to be believed that development was a precondition for security. Since the year 2000, a view has begun to emerge that security is a fundamental co-condition, if not precondition for development.
According to one European conference, "It is now widely acknowledged that in societies where the minimal conditions for human security for individuals and communities are not met, sustainable human development is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
This shift in thinking actually began in 1994 when the UNDP was making its case for states to provide more support for human development. It argued that security was not just a problem for nations and territories (in the case of war) but for individuals. Other reports now confirm that the principal victims of violence are civilian citizens, not soldiers. The international system needs to adjust to this.
The international security agenda still focuses on armed conflicts between states or civil war within states. Furthermore, international organisations have not developed ways of helping states to address their internal security problems. The World Bank is the major source of development funding but is unwilling to support police reforms and has a limited view of legal and judicial reform.
The World Bank talks about how crime hurts Jamaica's economy but does little to help. Dr. Wesley Hughes has said that Jamaica could achieve double-digit growth if we contain crime. Kingsley Thomas had said before that we could get growth of 12 per cent if we do.
Neither can we have human development if children cannot go to school because of violence or if they are being killed at school. People will not want to work late shifts to improve themselves if they are scared after dark.
Children cannot do homework with gun shots going off around them. The social sector will suffer if more and more public money has to go to stemming ever increasing crime levels. The family cannot be stable if mothers and fathers are being killed. Communities cannot trust their members if they are divided by gangs.
GOVERNANCE AND SECURITY
Yet, the emphasis on security must carry with it an emphasis on responsible policing. It is good to hear that the Ministry of National Security is to be modernised. The PSOJ is right to say that greater oversight of police conduct is needed. Jamaicans for Justice must be satisfied that the same applies to the role of the JDF. But the idea that the state alone is responsible for security however modernised and with whatever oversight, is as old-fashioned as the capitalist versus socialist debate. The state alone is not responsible for society and its security.
This is why community-policing is important. It is important that we build up neighbourhood watch committees. It is important that those well-resourced civil society groups like JFJ contribute some of their EU-gained funds to support social programmes in the worst-affected communities. It is important for the UNDP in Jamaica to continue its civic dialogue series in the various communities. It is good for the PSOJ to have its Crime Stop programme especially since it is one of the most successful of its kind. It is important for us to draw upon the expertise of Scotland Yard and the international community. It is good that the new police commissioner has a hot-line that gives citizens direct access to his office.
But what should the working strategy be? Probably Canada comes closest to what we should think about. Since 2000, Canada has focused on promoting safety for people by protecting them from threats of violence through a policy of 'humanising security' which puts people at the centre of security policies. It sees human security and human development as being two sides of the same coin. Both must be addressed by enforcing the rule of law, making security administration transparent and accountable, and concentrating on organised crime and terrorism. The emphasis on governance is important because, as human rights advocates will say, neither human security nor human development can occur where human rights are routinely violated.
BIPARTISANSHIP AND COALITIONS AGAINST CRIME
It is this context that the announcement that the PNP and JLP will resume the Vale Royal talks is critical. Dr. Ken Baugh is right to say that now more than ever, we need to build consensus as much as is compatible with a vibrant two-party system. The parties promise to work together to restore public order. They will find a national strategy to combat crime. They will find ways to distance themselves from persons of questionable character. They will support a return to national civility based on the Values and Attitudes programme. They will discuss the situation of the death penalty. The teams from the Government and the Opposition will include the Minister and Shadow Minister of National Security.
The two sides have passed the Anti-Terrorism Bill. Measures against crime and in support of public order were strengthened by the passage of Bills that amended the Road Traffic Act and the Transportation Authority Act. The Finger Print Act was passed in the Senate to keep a better track on young persons involved in crime.
Against this bipartisan background, Dr. Phillips' declaration of war against criminal gangs has the best political chance yet of succeeding.
But if the private sector and society at large are serious, we must heed Godfrey Dyer's advice that, "everyone, be they politician, member of the private sector or peasant will be arrested if they commit a crime."
It is now important for the JCF and groups like JFJ to find a better way to work together. The JCF has committed itself to establishing a Professional Standards Branch to tackle corruption, increase accountability, make police stations citizen-friendly, and to respect the rights and dignity of Jamaicans. JFJ has changed its tone by expressing regret of the killing of a policeman. Probably police and citizens can now form the coalition against crime that will make the war against criminals succeed.>
Robert Buddan lectures in the department of government at the University of the West Indies, Mona. You can send your comments to Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or infocus@gleanerjm.com
