A new political culture

It is more than a little ironic that, after making such heavy weather of the Bail Bill, both the Government and the Opposition fully agree on one thing — that legislation alone will not make an impact on the crime situation. The Government did not sing this song when, before Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday agreed to bipartisan talks, the Manning regime continually targeted the UNC for stymieing the fight against crime by refusing to support laws like the Police Reform Bills, the Anti-Kidnapping Bill, and this same Bail Bill. And the UNC regime itself, when it occupied office, passed a record number of Bills under the energetic then-Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj — many of which now appear open to constitutional challenges.

But, because the Bail Act was the product of cooperation between the Government and Opposition, it was left to the Independent Senators to point out the shortcomings of the Act. Senator and attorney Dana Seetahal, in particular, noted anomalies such as the Act actually guaranteeing accused kidnappers the right to a speedy trial; the omission of persons who negotiated ransoms for kidnappers from the Act’s ambit; and the implication that a 17-year-old male who had sex with a 15-year-old girl was guilty of a more violent offence than a kidnapper. Senator Seetahal also predicted that the 60-day limit set  by the Act would not be met. Despite these and other concerns, the Independent Senators nonetheless supported, not the legislation per se, but the bipartisan process by which it had come about. We are not sure, however, that this was sufficient justification to pass into law a Bill which removes a constitutionally-enshrined right.

As criminologist Professor Ramesh Deosaran pointed out in his contribution last Tuesday, when such rights are removed, citizens expect something significant in return. In this particular case, citizens expect that the passage of the Bail Act will be the first step in the reduction of kidnappings. Yet, by the parliamentarians’ own admission, the legislation by itself is unlikely to accomplish this. Nobody seriously believes, for example, that the new bail conditions will deter kidnappers. How could it, when harsher penalties for kidnapping, passed only months earlier in the Parliament, failed to do so? Nor does it appear likely that the 60 days period will prove a serious obstacle to kidnappers. This is not only because of the practical limits imposed by the court procedures but also because, before a kidnapper can be denied bail for 60 days, he has to be caught.

And, at present, the detection rate for kidnappers is somewhat below 25 percent. So the triumph last week has little to do with kidnapping per se, and more to do with bipartisanship. The Government and Opposition now have about 11 more pieces of legislation and other measures to discuss and agree on. But, since both agree that legislation has limited effects on crime, this bipartisanship must produce more than new laws. It must, in some way, produce a new political culture — one in which Government and Opposition do what is best for the country first and what is best for themselves second, and not, as has habitually been the case, the other way around.