Both ways, Mr Panday?

BASDEO Panday cannot have it both ways; he cannot accuse the Government of impotence in dealing with the crime problem and, at the same time, stymie the passage of Government Bills intended to address the crisis. But then the country has come to expect anything from Mr Panday, so his current stand should not really surprise us, being just another in a long list of contradictory capers. Indeed, in denying his party’s support for the Police Service Reform Bills, Mr Panday seems to believe he is enjoying one of his finest moments, even though a concerned cross-section of the society, including business and community groups, have urgently called for his party’s cooperation in getting the Bills through Parliament. It now becomes clear that Mr Panday, enjoying his prominent role in the ridiculous controversy he has created, has no intention of supporting the Bills which, in fact, are really creatures of his own UNC government.

The Opposition Leader’s counter demand for constitutional reform can hardly be regarded as a legitimate quid pro quo since that need is certainly not as urgent as the necessity of dealing with the frightening level of violent crime in the country. In any case, the Government has committed itself to undertaking an upgrading of the Constitution and one expects that a Commission for that purpose will soon be forthcoming. In taking that adamant stand against the Police reform bills, Mr Panday, ironically enough, has apparently boxed himself into a position with little room to manoeuvre. After all that fervent resistance, he cannot now abjectly capitulate without a fatal loss of credibility and, perhaps more frighteningly, the loss of a cause that keeps him on centre stage. There is also the daunting prospect, as far as the UNC is concerned, that if the Bills go through and the Police Service becomes more efficient and accountable, the effort may well result in an effective attack on the crime problem, thus removing a critical target from the Opposition’s arsenal.

It seems, then, that Mr Panday and the UNC are condemned to play this resistance game to the bitter end. It is a forlorn hope that they would suddenly reverse their stand towards  the legislation which comes up for debate in the Senate on June 29, requiring a two-thirds majority for its approval in Parliament. However depressing it may be, this is an eventuality which the Government must now face; the strategy of radically reforming the Police Service to meet the crime challenge will have to be set aside until the leadership of the UNC changes and, with it, the old policy of playing political games with the interest of the country. Prime Minister Patrick Manning was right when he observed last Friday that the national community will draw its own conclusions if the Opposition fails to support the Bills, but the Government can hardly be satisfied with that outcome.

It is their responsibility to relieve the society of this demon and they must find ways within the power and authority they now wield to achieve that purpose. As far as the Police Service is concerned, methods must be found for imposing stricter discipline and greater incentives aimed at weeding out the malingerers and encouraging the committed officers. As this newspaper has recommended repeatedly in the past, our crime fighters must also be equipped with the latest technology in tracking down and putting away the criminal element. In his Budget speech, Mr Manning declared war on the criminals and appointed a special Anti-Crime Unit to pursue this initiative. The country will be looking to this group to fulfil its mandate by producing a range of effective crime-fighting measures.