Facing political reality

Last Friday, Housing Minister Keith Rowley was at it again, attacking the Commissioner of Police and the Opposition for the skyrocketing crime rate. Dr Rowley’s argument was that the government had responsibility for policy, but it was the Police Service which had to implement policy. But the public can gauge the merit of Dr Rowley’s argument by the fact that he prefaced it by defending the infamous telephone call to the Marabella police station made by Prime Minister Patrick Manning when his driver was arrested.

Technically speaking, however, Dr Rowley is quite correct. That is, if both politicians and police officers did what they were supposed to do, responsibility — and therefore blame — could be properly apportioned. But this is not the reality by which this society operates. Mr Manning’s telephone call showed, at the very least, poor judgment since, even if this were not his intention, it seemed as though he were attempting to influence the officers involved. Mr Manning also made a wrong step when he bypassed the head of the Police Service Commission to personally hand over the CoP’s letter of appointment. And the public still remains in the dark about the politician who made a call to the Tobago police ordering them to free the Barbadian fishermen.

So this is how things work in this country, and it is disingenuous of Dr Rowley to pretend he doesn’t know better. Moreover, his attack on Police Commissioner Trevor Paul also displayed a similar carelessness about political realities. "So in a crime wave, you could see the Minister of National Security," said Dr Rowley. "The one person you could never see on television to talk about crime is the Commissioner of Police, even though it is his job to fight crime."

The problem with this argument is that Public Service regulations ban public servants from commenting on Government policy. It is a rule that public servants often hide behind when questioned by the media and, if the Manning regime were truly serious about adhering to developed country standards, they would remove this backward regulation instead of doing everything in their power to undermine the Freedom of Information Act.

Moreover, this newspaper has called repeatedly for official responses about investigations into various incidents of police brutality and corruption. Commissioner Paul has not made any statements and, as we have pointed out, seems unwilling to take any action against such officers. But what prevents National Security Minister Martin Joseph from saying something? Why doesn’t the Police Service Commission make it their business to tackle this issue?

Dr Rowley’s argument becomes even more hollow when we recall that Minister Joseph also said he cannot be blamed for the crime situation unless he is given more power. And who can forget the former police commissioner who described himself as "a toothless bulldog"? So the question is, who really wields power in this place — the Minister, the CoP, or the bandits?

Since it is a bad principle to put power over the police in the hands of politicians, we would suggest that, if Dr Rowley wants to blame the CoP, he should lobby for him to be given more power — particularly the power to hire and fire junior officers without too much red tape. And the firing of the CoP himself should be put in the hands of an independent body, with non-performance being a valid reason for dismissal. Maybe if such systems are put in place, people in power will spend more time doing their duty instead of making up excuses why they can’t.