Words in the wind

Unfortunately, the President’s address was also inoperative on several levels.

A key point raised by President Richards was the need for Members of Parliament "regardless of political colour, to unite behind the goal of ridding the country of bandits..." It is commendable that the President should use the moral suasion of his office to make such a call publicly. But will this have any effect on the attitudes of Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday? There is no evidence that either man pays attention to the cries of citizens, save when such cries have political benefit. Mr Manning pursues his pet projects regardless of public criticism, and Mr Panday is at present demonstrating that he cannot cooperate even with members of his own political party.

The ineffectuality of President Richards’ recommendation was emphasised by his statement that ... "Parliament, the highest law-making body in the land, must be able to take decisions that will have criminals on the run." But Parliament is the highest law-making body in the land only in theory. In practice, however, the highest law-making body is the Cabinet, and Parliament exists only to rubber-stamp Cabinet’s decisions. Yet, although he touched on every aspect of society from education to the economy, the President made no mention of Constitutional reform — surely a crucial matter if we are to make our democracy functional and so prevent politicians from riding roughshod over citizens.

The President also seemed to misunderstand the nature of crime in our society, although this was a major focus of his address. His analysis was that the difference between law-abiding citizens and bandits was that the latter "in spite of expected rivalries, they are united in their goal and their recruitment strategy works in the current climate of misplaced hostility and adversarial stances that are out of step with possible solutions to the problem."

But what goal could the President possibly be referring to? The bandits’ concern is money, which they get through drug trafficking, kidnapping for ransom, and straightforward robbery. There is also some evidence that the disbursement of URP monies is behind several murders. Indeed, it is such rivalries between gangs which account for a good many of the murders in this country. So the gangs, which would typically consist of 20 to perhaps 50 members, are united only within their own groups and in the sense that they pursue the same criminal activities. Nor does it follow that political or ethnic rivalries facilitate such activities. The gangs’ recruitment strategies work because the young men see no better options for themselves in this picaroon society.

What does facilitate the criminals’ success is the ineffectuality of the Government’s policies and the incompetence, perhaps even the involvement, of the police. The wider social causes were touched on by the President — lack of effective political representation at the community level; inequitable economic distribution; and the need for more university graduates. But proper community representation requires reform of local government; equitable income distribution is only possible in a socialist state, and socialist systems which interfere with market forces cannot create economic prosperity; and a better education system must not sacrifice quality for quantity.

We realise that, as a ceremonial functionary, President Richards is limited in what he can say or do. His main power is really that of moral suasion. However, moral suasion is most effective when it takes account of political and economic realities. Without that dimension, the President’s words, no matter how powerful, will just be breath in the wind.