Budget ‘1984’

The topic was crime and the caller to the radio talk show had just one terse comment: “In totalitarian states there is less crime than in democratic ones.” This was some weeks ago but the comment stuck in my mind because, while you will usually only hear religious fundamentalists claiming to prefer totalitarian rule (which is what all theocracies are), it seems to me that there are a significant number of Trinidadians who believe this kind of dotishness. It is a paradox, because the average Trini is almost instinctively democratic yet, at the same time, quite willing to cede absolute power to people who have office and/or credentials. But the paradox is only apparent: we are democratic in our personal social relations, but totalitarian in our political and institutional relationships.

So it is the totalitarian perspective which underlies calls for a state of emergency, the removal of bail for offences like drug-trafficking and kidnapping, and zero tolerance policies. The assumption of persons who make the calls is, of course, that they themselves would never feel the lash of such draconian measures. That is why they never bother to think through the implications of what they are asking for. Take President Max Richards. In his speech to Parliament on September 29, he suggested that “law enforcement agencies must see to it that every infraction of the law, no matter how small, is dealt with by the full force of the law.” He then hastened to add, “Am I advocating a police state? Not by any means.” But the fact that he felt it necessary to voice this caveat means that he was well aware of the danger of his call for zero tolerance: which makes his advocacy even more reprehensible. Not only reprehensible but ironic: if the powers-that-be followed the erstwhile UWI fete promoter’s advice, then many people would be arrested during the Carnival season under the Dancehall Act. I myself could be charged in any given month for contravening the law against blasphemy. But, presumably, Richards never intended his suggestion to be taken to its logical conclusion. In calling for minor infractions to be punished, he probably had in mind things like littering, cussing, and urinating in public. But, undesirable as such acts may be, the political reality is that the only regimes which punish minor infractions are totalitarian ones.

Thus, “zero tolerance” characterised the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, Puritan townships in 19th century New England, Nazi government in 20th-century Germany, and Islamic theocracies nowadays. And, while totalitarian regimes appear orderly, their deeper characteristics are always corruption, cruelty, and the misery of the average citizen. This is what the caller I quoted in the first paragraph doesn’t understand. In a narrow technical sense, it is true that totalitarian regimes have less crime than democratic ones. But that is because criminal acts, from murder to stealing, are taken over by officials of the State: who, being officials of the State, are legally allowed to kill and plunder. And, since we live in a country where just last week a man was shot and killed by the police for robbing a policeman, we have certainly begun treading that dangerous road already. Zero tolerance itself has never been proven to reduce crime. Nonetheless, Clico will be paying former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, best known for his promotion of the zero tolerance policy, to come to Trinidad to tell us how to fight crime. But, except for the publicity Clico is going to get, it’s safe to say that this exercise is a waste of money. Giuliani doesn’t know enough about our particular problems and, even if he did, the institutional differences between New York and Port-of-Spain ensure that what worked there won’t work here.

Besides, even under Giuliani’s stewardship, factors other than zero tolerance may have been more pertinent in reducing crime. According to Harvard law professor Bernard Harcourt, in a paper titled Policing Disorder, there were favourable economic conditions in the 1990s, a dip in the number of 18- to 24-year-old males, as well as shifts in adolescent behaviour. Gun-oriented policing and enhanced drug enforcement initiatives were instituted, as well as new computerised tracking systems that sped up police responses to crime, and the sheer number of police officers was significantly increased. In any case, we lack the technical resources to make a zero tolerance policy workable. But, even if this wasn’t so, what on earth makes anyone think that our police are responsible enough or ethical enough not to abuse such a mandate? All the evidence clearly points to the contrary conclusion. Apart from the several suspicious deaths of persons in police custody, the arrests of marchers in Chaguanas on Monday shows how easily the police are influenced by what they perceive as political permission. Nor must we overlook the irony that it was the Panday administration which strengthened the punitive measures against protest action.

In this context, I find Budget 2004 to be a deeply disturbing document. Its socioeconomic measures are all standard. Its only departures are in what appears to be a formula for a police state: the setting up of a parallel security organisation, plans to bolster the Riot Squad, and the training of youths by the military. These measures have to be seen in the context of Patrick Manning’s history and character: a Prime Minister who declared a State of Emergency to remove a House Speaker and a man so deeply insecure that he can never admit to being wrong. (Hence the return of Knowlson Gift, the resurrection of the Red House plan, the refusal to remove Howie Chin Lee.) Given the haste with which Basdeo Panday has set about widening the racial paranoia that has already been heightened by Monday’s arrests, the foundation for true ethnic conflict — as distinct from the ethnic posturing we have traditionally indulged in — appears to be solidifying rapidly. The average Trini may be democratic, even liberal, but our leaders in every sphere are almost without exception of totalitarian bent. The only difference between Panday and Manning in this regard is that Panday’s bark is worse than his bite, whereas Manning tends to bite without even a warning growl. In the end, though, it’s always ordinary citizens who get it in the backside.
email: kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com