Peter Espeut
IT WAS interesting to see the reaction among the 'Clansmen' and their supporters to the statement by Minister of National Security, Peter Phillips, congratulating the police for locating and neutralising their leader. They condemned him as a traitor, publicly burnt shirts with his printed image, and further burnt him in effigy.
Why is this interesting? Because the Clansmen are allied to the ruling PNP, and have become used to support, cover and protection from the PNP. In the same way, the 'One Order' gang has become used to support, cover and protection from the JLP. And all this despite the fact that MPs from both sides have signed a code of political conduct which eschews this kind of support, cover and protection. The party-affiliated gangs understand that there is a game their political leaders are required to play: they must publicly sign this sort of document, and publicly declare their abhorrence of political gunmen and thuggery; but they know that when the rubber hits the road, the support will be there. Minister Phillips' behaviour is considered traitorous by these PNP supporters because he now seems not to be playing the game fairly.
SYMBOLISM WEAK
The anti-don, anti-garrison symbolism has been weak. You never hear a politician who has a garrison area in his constituency run by a gang say: "I want to send a clear message that I will not offer any support to the [insert gang name] gang. I understand that they claim to be supporters of my party, but I want to make it clear that I do not want their support. I intend to turn over to the police any information which comes into my hands about the activities of this gang." You will never hear anything like this.
On the other hand, is there any data which might suggest that politicians support the dons and offer political cover? When politicians and Cabinet members attend the funerals of notorious persons (with or without gun salutes) or send messages to be read at the funeral, does that send a weak signal or a strong signal? When the Prime Minister pays a special visit to a garrison don to publicly thank him for support received, does that send a weak signal or a strong signal? The conflicting signals are read and interpreted.
But clearly there has been a sea of change. One PNP don is behind bars without bail, and another has been 'taken out'. The cynical are saying that in a close contest for president of the PNP, Peter Phillips' very recent stand against political dons is playing to the gallery, and that Bulbie is safe in Cuba. Such a secret would be hard to keep for very long, and would horribly backfire. I prefer to believe that, at least for now, there is some commitment to reduce the runaway murder rate by breaking up the garrison strongholds of both parties.
OPPORTUNITY TO SEVER LINKS
Nationally, we are now at an hour of decision. An opportunity presents itself for both political parties to sever their links with the criminal gangs they have been supporting. So far, it looks as if it will become another opportunity missed, with strident denials and demands for 'proof' instead of contrite admissions.
Of course, admissions could become incriminating, opening up the possibility of criminal prosecutions; what many politicians have done (or what they know about and have kept to themselves) is itself criminal behaviour. I believe the Government should create the environment for 'confessions' by convening some sort of 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission'. I first recommended this a decade ago in this column, after seeing how Nelson Mandela led South Africa out of the tribalisation created by Apartheid. Our local tribalisation needs no less of a catharsis, a way for both the dons and their political patrons to explain themselves, and to both receive some sort of amnesty. I guess we can include the police in this. The alternative is either a return to 'normality' (i.e. the rule by political dons and the pretence by the parties of any connection) after the PNP leadership race is over, or politicians wetting their pants every time a henchman is captured by the police, in fear that they might 'sing like a bird'. So far, the strategy of 'capture' has not been much employed by the police, but I hope it will become more common.
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be one way of avoiding more bloodshed, and could produce a smooth transition from the present growing anarchy towards a civilised society. This is the Hour of Decision! Are we up to it?
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
