Tweet
Golding's top-down, top-heavy approach
HEART TO HEARTBetty Ann Blaine
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Dear Reader,
The problem with history is that we never seem to learn from it. With all the mistakes we have made in the past, you would think that by now the prime minister would understand that the "top-down" approach doesn't work. To compound the problem, Mr Golding has adopted a "top-heavy" consultative mechanism. The result is that the proposals he has advanced to fight crime seem to be neither pragmatic nor popular.
Can somebody explain to me how any consultation on crime could include the people least affected by it, but excludes those who are most affected and impacted? Doesn't the prime minister understand that unless he is prepared to detain whole communities indefinitely, we will never solve crime without the participation and support of the citizens themselves? In the same way that Jamaica's crime problem cannot be solved from outside of our borders, it is the same way that the crime problem will not be solved outside of the affected communities. The people who are under siege are the very ones who hold the key to solving crime, and somebody needs to begin talking to them.
It was clear that Mr Golding sought to achieve consensus, but with whom? To seek consensus on the most problematic area of national life with marginal private sector and human rights groups is in and of itself a recipe for failure. The question to be asked is, whom do these groups speak for, and are their views representative of the majority of Jamaicans?
Personally, I'm not sure that I can trust some of the folks who say they speak for us. Take the legal fraternity, for example. Before now, when was the last time any of us heard their collective voice on an issue to do with crime and the general injustice in the society? In the same way that the church is criticised for engaging in "selective morality", it is the same
way, I suspect, that lawyers could be criticised for selective advocacy.
While I'm aware that there are individual lawyers who are sincerely committed to human rights and justice, and play their part in advancing the interests and concerns of the poor, the Bar Association has largely been silent and ineffective as a professional body. And yet perhaps more than any other group in the country, our lawyers know first-hand the symptoms, manifestations and the results of criminality.
There may be some other groups in the society who could claim ignorance about the realities of crime, but not our lawyers. The sight of young men, and to a lesser degree young women, shackled, ill-treated, manipulated, exploited, incarcerated and abused, must be a common sight for the lawyers of this country. However, most have been silent until now. Can the people of Jamaica trust them, even while the legal and constitutional arguments may very well be sound and just?
I remember as a child that my mother, a semi-literate, black-skinned woman from deep, rural Westmoreland, was always deathly afraid of "courthouse". In fact, the stories were told that when anybody in the district would get a telegram to go to court, "dem would faint-way on di spot", because they were so afraid and intimidated. My recent visit to a courthouse demonstrated to me that not much has changed. Poor people are still expected to go to court "cap in hand" with heads bowed down to Massa judge. I was appalled at the disrespectful and high-handed manner in which ordinary people are treated in our courts. Let us be clear. The travesty of justice in our country is not only about the draconian measures proposed and implemented by the state. It is also about the inherent injustice within the judiciary, and the social nonfeasance within the legal fraternity.
Although I sometimes have problems with the style and substance of the lobby group, Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), another one of the prime minister's major consultants on crime, we have to at least give them credit for being consistent with their protest. The problem, however, is balance, and the question that all of us should be asking, including JFJ, is how can the government balance the delicate problem of human rights with the abhorrent levels of crime and violence in the country?
It seems to me that the question can only be answered if other, more fundamental questions are advanced and debated. For example, is Jamaica in a state of undeclared war, and is Jamaica a terrorist state? As far as the latter is concerned, there are some very disturbing signs. The increasing fire bombings of homes and the forced removal of people from their homes and communities are tantamount to ethnic cleansing with terrorist overtones. The incident where a bomb was placed underneath a car in Morant Bay must be cause for concern. Add to that the widespread and wanton killing of innocents, and it is clear that the country has turned the corner into a different kind of criminality - one that clearly requires a different type of response.
The problem with Mr Golding's top-down, top-heavy approach to the proposed crime initiatives, is that it not only smacks of "reactionism", but it has essentially disqualified the rest of us from the discourse and the consultations. Having discussions with the professional elite of the country, behind closed doors, and on an issue that ought to engage and engender wide public policy debate is disappointing at best, and short-sighted and counterproductive at worst.
With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com
HEART TO HEARTBetty Ann Blaine
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Dear Reader,
The problem with history is that we never seem to learn from it. With all the mistakes we have made in the past, you would think that by now the prime minister would understand that the "top-down" approach doesn't work. To compound the problem, Mr Golding has adopted a "top-heavy" consultative mechanism. The result is that the proposals he has advanced to fight crime seem to be neither pragmatic nor popular.
Can somebody explain to me how any consultation on crime could include the people least affected by it, but excludes those who are most affected and impacted? Doesn't the prime minister understand that unless he is prepared to detain whole communities indefinitely, we will never solve crime without the participation and support of the citizens themselves? In the same way that Jamaica's crime problem cannot be solved from outside of our borders, it is the same way that the crime problem will not be solved outside of the affected communities. The people who are under siege are the very ones who hold the key to solving crime, and somebody needs to begin talking to them.
It was clear that Mr Golding sought to achieve consensus, but with whom? To seek consensus on the most problematic area of national life with marginal private sector and human rights groups is in and of itself a recipe for failure. The question to be asked is, whom do these groups speak for, and are their views representative of the majority of Jamaicans?
Personally, I'm not sure that I can trust some of the folks who say they speak for us. Take the legal fraternity, for example. Before now, when was the last time any of us heard their collective voice on an issue to do with crime and the general injustice in the society? In the same way that the church is criticised for engaging in "selective morality", it is the same
way, I suspect, that lawyers could be criticised for selective advocacy.
While I'm aware that there are individual lawyers who are sincerely committed to human rights and justice, and play their part in advancing the interests and concerns of the poor, the Bar Association has largely been silent and ineffective as a professional body. And yet perhaps more than any other group in the country, our lawyers know first-hand the symptoms, manifestations and the results of criminality.
There may be some other groups in the society who could claim ignorance about the realities of crime, but not our lawyers. The sight of young men, and to a lesser degree young women, shackled, ill-treated, manipulated, exploited, incarcerated and abused, must be a common sight for the lawyers of this country. However, most have been silent until now. Can the people of Jamaica trust them, even while the legal and constitutional arguments may very well be sound and just?
I remember as a child that my mother, a semi-literate, black-skinned woman from deep, rural Westmoreland, was always deathly afraid of "courthouse". In fact, the stories were told that when anybody in the district would get a telegram to go to court, "dem would faint-way on di spot", because they were so afraid and intimidated. My recent visit to a courthouse demonstrated to me that not much has changed. Poor people are still expected to go to court "cap in hand" with heads bowed down to Massa judge. I was appalled at the disrespectful and high-handed manner in which ordinary people are treated in our courts. Let us be clear. The travesty of justice in our country is not only about the draconian measures proposed and implemented by the state. It is also about the inherent injustice within the judiciary, and the social nonfeasance within the legal fraternity.
Although I sometimes have problems with the style and substance of the lobby group, Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), another one of the prime minister's major consultants on crime, we have to at least give them credit for being consistent with their protest. The problem, however, is balance, and the question that all of us should be asking, including JFJ, is how can the government balance the delicate problem of human rights with the abhorrent levels of crime and violence in the country?
It seems to me that the question can only be answered if other, more fundamental questions are advanced and debated. For example, is Jamaica in a state of undeclared war, and is Jamaica a terrorist state? As far as the latter is concerned, there are some very disturbing signs. The increasing fire bombings of homes and the forced removal of people from their homes and communities are tantamount to ethnic cleansing with terrorist overtones. The incident where a bomb was placed underneath a car in Morant Bay must be cause for concern. Add to that the widespread and wanton killing of innocents, and it is clear that the country has turned the corner into a different kind of criminality - one that clearly requires a different type of response.
The problem with Mr Golding's top-down, top-heavy approach to the proposed crime initiatives, is that it not only smacks of "reactionism", but it has essentially disqualified the rest of us from the discourse and the consultations. Having discussions with the professional elite of the country, behind closed doors, and on an issue that ought to engage and engender wide public policy debate is disappointing at best, and short-sighted and counterproductive at worst.
With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com
Comment