Nothing new from Giuliani and Kerik

THE EDITOR: The foremost question in the wake of the visit of Messrs Giuliani and Kerik to this country is whether we are now better placed to undertake an effective approach to the containment and reduction of crime in this country.

Let me say, first of all, that Mr Giuliani conveyed in his delivery a clarity of thought, a sense of focus and a will to get things done and achieve objectives. It would indeed be very rewarding if he could inspire the relevant Government and police personnel and his audience to emulate his pro-active approach, his self confidence, strength of will and obsession with results. And I think it is in this area that his visit could be beneficial. But I am not holding my breath. His lecture at the Hilton was treated more as a social event, but with the majority of Government not in a socialising mood. The audience duly applauded as if on cue, appropriately genuflected and went home. Clico once again demonstrated that showcasing leadership does not come cheap. But what did Giuliani or Kerik actually say that was original or earth-shattering? From what I read it was very little. Scores of local commentators on crime, including myself, have engaged in analyses and proffered recommendations to which the authorities have been indifferent or oblivious.

When Giuliani spoke of having a vision of what one wanted to achieve, a process or implementation mechanism by which to realise it and an assessment of performance through accountability and acceptance of responsibility, it is an approach that is relevant to all areas of endeavour and has long been practised. In a review of the 2003-2004 Budget published on 26/10/31 I wrote:- “In assessing the Budget, the relevant questions need to be posed — What is the Government seeking to achieve in any particular sector? Is that a useful and attainable objective and, if it is, has the required analysis been undertaken to arrive at appropriate policies and programmes, are these being effectively implemented (process) and by what criteria are we to evaluate the results (accountability)?” So really what is new?

With respect to the reduction of crime, both Giuliani and Kerik indicated that, regardless of context and culture, the management of the police service must be a key area of focus. Way back in a column on 18/08/02 I wrote:- “Police performance is not just a function of the numbers game. More pivotal than numbers and equipment are the quality of the human resource, the prevailing cultural ambience and the effective deployment of existing personnel... The Govern-ment should establish the policy framework, provide for the availability of a reasonable quantum of resources, monitor overall performance and identify minimum standards of accountability.”

Furthermore on 25/08/02 I elaborated my views thus:- “The battle against crime is primarily fought in the communities and neighbourhoods and not in police stations. Hence the need for a redeployment to increase police presence in communities via mobile and foot patrols... community policing should be a more researched and in-depth process linked to active community organisations to reduce crime and establish safe communities. “There is a consensus that the police should become more pro-active in crime prevention. This is even more important than crime detection and prosecution. The police should detect early signs and trends indicative of escalation in criminal activities in designated locations. This requires a strengthening of the police intelligence-gathering capacity through deploying more trained non-uniformed officers in the field.”

I have quoted at length not to blow my own trumpet but to indicate that with respect to their suggested solutions we have been there before. It is the will to do that is lacking. But then, from on high, I am just a lowly inexpert local columnist engaged in filling up newspaper space.

TREVOR SUDAMA
San Fernando