Government and Opposition discuss crime

After all, Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday can only offer political solutions to the crime problem. We use the term "political" in its broadest sense - ie the activity by which different groups within the same country negotiate their competing interests in ways that benefits all or most citizens. Part of such politics, in the present scenario, will focus to a great extent on legislation. The very fact that the Government at one point touted the Police Reform Bills as absolutely essential to fighting crime was itself a political strategy, employed not so much because Government spokespersons believed their own rhetoric, but because this line was useful for shifting blame to the Opposition.

So this is only one hurdle that Messrs Manning and Panday have to cross in tomorrow’s meeting. But there will also be all kinds of undercurrents running which both men, as experienced politicians, would be keenly aware of.

Politics, as we have defined it, is the most advanced form of social interaction among human beings. But the kind of politics typically practised in underdeveloped nations is a baser kind — an activity which negotiates competing interests in a way that seeks to get an absolute advantage for the politician’s particular constituency. That constituency may be defined by race, ethnicity, class, religion or some combination thereof. The problem with such politics is that the good of the whole community is not served, and so even the constituency suffers — as demonstrated by the murders of Afro-Trinidadians and the kidnappings of Indo-Trinidadians.

This, however, is the kind of politics which will play at Monday’s meeting. The Opposition team is meeting with the Government in a situation where, with oil and gas prices high and a $34 billion Budget just passed, the ruling PNM’s only real Achilles’ heel is the runaway crime rate. Thus, the Opposition’s political question is this — do we cooperate with the Government so that, if crime does go down, we can claim credit come the next general election? Or do we not cooperate so that, if crime continues to increase, we can use the issue to get back into office?

Several factors go into this calculation — whether the Opposition will be seen by citizens as displaying political maturity through cooperation; whether bi-partisan positions will have any effect on crime; and whether the civic conscience of the Opposition parliamentarians supersedes political self-interest.

The Government team will also have made its own calculations. It may head into the meeting with the specific intention of presenting proposals it knows the Opposition will not agree to, so that public criticism can be deflected on to the UNC. Or the Government may be entirely focused on getting the Police Reform Bills passed, since it has made this legislation a cornerstone of its crime-fighting strategy. And, whichever way it goes, the Government is already preparing, come the next general election, to take credit if crime goes down and to deflect blame if it does not.

Given the seriousness of the crime problem, citizens would no doubt prefer that such calculations not enter politicians’ heads on this issue. However, this is too much to expect of our political leaders. The best we can hope for is that, at the end of their meeting, the calculations of Mr Manning and Mr Panday would have resulted in outcomes that benefit the national community.