Tweet
History will not absolve us
Published: Friday | September 11, 2009
Decades from now when historians look back at this period in our history, they will not have kind words for us. History will record how politicians in modern Jamaica, while singing that they were out to "build a new Jamaica", carved up parts of the country into armed camps overseen by warlords with the mandate to deliver political victory at election time.
The creation of these political garrisons will be correctly described as the result of integrated planning, beginning with the establishment of housing projects at expense, with the units awarded exclusively to political supporters of their side. It was imperative to defend these political enclaves, and so armed militias staffed by political enforcers were created to provide. At election time they excelled in intimidatory tactics, ballot-stuffing and vote-rigging. In between elections they did "freelance" work on their own account, contributing to Jamaica's crime . Enjoying a degree of political protection, these political criminals could be confident of impunity.
As political power shifted from one side to the other, both parties had to opportunity to create these garrison communities, and both parties used their opportunities well. Territorial defence led to the inevitable collateral damage, with Jamaica rising in global stature in terms of murder statistics. But these enclaves served their parties well, and most of their founders were rewarded with national honours, with strings of letters after their names.
Minor consideration
The residents of the garrisons, being largely uneducated, needed reliable sources of, and so the award of public contracts was the next element integrated into the mix. The quality of the deliverables was a minor consideration; the major issue was the funnelling of government into the garrisons to lubricate the political machines.
During hard times when political funding became scarce, the militias turned to extortion and various other illegal cash-generating enterprises; these activities soon became multinational. With widespread complaints about increases in crime, politicians would claim that they were no longer in control. In a desperate attempt to maintain some loyalty, especially at election time, political support would still be given to the garrisons and their warlords. The response of the police was to try to avoid the juridical process since it could not be relied on to deliver meaningful convictions. Jamaica then gained further global ascendancy in statistics concerning police killings.
Whereas the hard-core support of the garrisons was ensured, much of the rest of the society stood by, watching, appalled at the carnage, and with increased personal insecurity. The evidence of political fraud was overwhelming and the reports of independent observers were proving embarrassing; something had to be done. As a result, the electoral system has cleaned up some of its most crass abuses, but leaving the garrisons themselves intact.
Not one charged
Even though irrefutable data existed implicating partisan election day workers in ballot-stuffing and vote-rigging, not one was ever charged. The political parties were loyal to their supporters who had acted on their behalf. All the politicians who had suborned electoral fraud continued to sit in Parliament, and retained their high national honours. And the garrisons continued to operate as usual. The links between politicians and their warlords remained overt and public. The crime rate - including the murder rate - remained high.
Crime fighting consultants pointed out the obvious - the crime rate and national insecurity will remain high as long as the garrisons remain in place. A national consensus began to grow calling for the dismantling of the garrisons, but this was stoutly resisted by the politicians; their response was either to deny the existence of garrisons, or to deny any continuing connection with the warlords, despite the evidence. Clearly they believed that any politician who tried to dismantle the garrisons would be risking his political throat being cut.
Decades from now, historians will point out that the same people who created the garrisons could not be expected to dismantle them. For this to happen, irresistible pressure will have to come either from inside or from outside.
From whom will the inside pressure come? The private sector funds the present system, and benefits from it. Other elements in the society are either beneficiaries or too scared to do anything.
Decades from now, will historians be able to record that Jamaica eventually solved its crime problems and dismantled the garrisons? Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com
Published: Friday | September 11, 2009
Decades from now when historians look back at this period in our history, they will not have kind words for us. History will record how politicians in modern Jamaica, while singing that they were out to "build a new Jamaica", carved up parts of the country into armed camps overseen by warlords with the mandate to deliver political victory at election time.
The creation of these political garrisons will be correctly described as the result of integrated planning, beginning with the establishment of housing projects at expense, with the units awarded exclusively to political supporters of their side. It was imperative to defend these political enclaves, and so armed militias staffed by political enforcers were created to provide. At election time they excelled in intimidatory tactics, ballot-stuffing and vote-rigging. In between elections they did "freelance" work on their own account, contributing to Jamaica's crime . Enjoying a degree of political protection, these political criminals could be confident of impunity.
As political power shifted from one side to the other, both parties had to opportunity to create these garrison communities, and both parties used their opportunities well. Territorial defence led to the inevitable collateral damage, with Jamaica rising in global stature in terms of murder statistics. But these enclaves served their parties well, and most of their founders were rewarded with national honours, with strings of letters after their names.
Minor consideration
The residents of the garrisons, being largely uneducated, needed reliable sources of, and so the award of public contracts was the next element integrated into the mix. The quality of the deliverables was a minor consideration; the major issue was the funnelling of government into the garrisons to lubricate the political machines.
During hard times when political funding became scarce, the militias turned to extortion and various other illegal cash-generating enterprises; these activities soon became multinational. With widespread complaints about increases in crime, politicians would claim that they were no longer in control. In a desperate attempt to maintain some loyalty, especially at election time, political support would still be given to the garrisons and their warlords. The response of the police was to try to avoid the juridical process since it could not be relied on to deliver meaningful convictions. Jamaica then gained further global ascendancy in statistics concerning police killings.
Whereas the hard-core support of the garrisons was ensured, much of the rest of the society stood by, watching, appalled at the carnage, and with increased personal insecurity. The evidence of political fraud was overwhelming and the reports of independent observers were proving embarrassing; something had to be done. As a result, the electoral system has cleaned up some of its most crass abuses, but leaving the garrisons themselves intact.
Not one charged
Even though irrefutable data existed implicating partisan election day workers in ballot-stuffing and vote-rigging, not one was ever charged. The political parties were loyal to their supporters who had acted on their behalf. All the politicians who had suborned electoral fraud continued to sit in Parliament, and retained their high national honours. And the garrisons continued to operate as usual. The links between politicians and their warlords remained overt and public. The crime rate - including the murder rate - remained high.
Crime fighting consultants pointed out the obvious - the crime rate and national insecurity will remain high as long as the garrisons remain in place. A national consensus began to grow calling for the dismantling of the garrisons, but this was stoutly resisted by the politicians; their response was either to deny the existence of garrisons, or to deny any continuing connection with the warlords, despite the evidence. Clearly they believed that any politician who tried to dismantle the garrisons would be risking his political throat being cut.
Decades from now, historians will point out that the same people who created the garrisons could not be expected to dismantle them. For this to happen, irresistible pressure will have to come either from inside or from outside.
From whom will the inside pressure come? The private sector funds the present system, and benefits from it. Other elements in the society are either beneficiaries or too scared to do anything.
Decades from now, will historians be able to record that Jamaica eventually solved its crime problems and dismantled the garrisons? Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com
- More Commentary
- The change will not come from the inside because of either the fear factor or the lack of resolve resulting from pervasive corruption. It can only come from the outside.
Flag
LikeReplyReply 
TrevDiMan 
5 hours ago
Mr. Espeut, I would like to say that you are going to be wrong on this count but, unfortunately, you won't be. The promised leadership changes, changes in governance and in how government operates were just mere words for some to get into power and once they did nothing really changed except for the faces and letters after their names. I believe that when the history of Jamaica is written about this period, especially these last 20 years, it will be regarded as a time when ignorance, inanity and any other form of stupidity were celebrated as virtues and when corruption in government was tolerated and enabled and its perpetrators, apologists and enablers were never made to pay for their criminality. In other words, like the violent crimes and their perpetrators, too many of whom don't get caught, those in government who abused their authority and the people's trust are not likely to do the time. Yes, Mr. Espeut, history will not be too kind to Jamaica when it comes to these last 20 years.
Flag
LikeReplyReply- dranks 5 hours ago
Peter Espeut is not saying anything new, all this has been said for as long as garrisons existed in Jamaica, but it needs to be said over and over and over again until the politicians start to listen and do what is right. The days of talking tough are over, Minister of Justice, actions on your part and all poiticians must now come forth. No pussyfooting around the issues of garrisons and their dons or what-ever-else you want to call them. Jamaica has been bleeding for far too long.
Even though Espeut correctly echoes the musing of many, one thing is becoming more prevalent in the language, the reference to the men who hold sway in the afflicted areas; they have gone from political activists, to area leaders, to dons, and now we have Warlords. A step up to further wreck havoc on the society. Think of Afghanistan, Somalia and other failed states around the world and you see who really rules.
Comment