The decision by the Government two Sundays ago to recommend to the President the need for the declaration of a state of emergency has raised the issue of whether it should be used as a policy option in raising the level of attack by the State against the criminal elements in all forms and fashions. A state of emergency is not an easy option for any government to use in any situation because it sends the signal that a Government may be seen as weak and, therefore, has to set aside the rights and freedoms of the citizen in order to address the problem. There were those, including me, who were not in favour of a state of emergency seven years ago.
However, the policy options that have been tried since that time have not succeeded. Operations Anaconda and Baghdad, the creation and operationalisation of SAUTT, the purchase of sophisticated intelligence material from Israel, the various Bail Amendment Acts, community policing, the Mastrofski and Penn State connection, the reform of the Police Service Commission, etc, have not yielded the desired results. The difference with all of this is that this Government is relatively new (15 months into a five-year term of office) and it had to decide whether the criminal problem that it faced was going to be handled with variations of the previous policy measures or whether it would take the policy options to another level. The only other level was to declare a state of emergency.
However, the vocabulary that was used suggested that the Government was not going all the way insofar as there was a reference to a "limited" state of emergency. The use of this term was subject to different interpretations because the state of emergency was for the entire country. However, the application of curfew orders was limited to six local government areas in Trinidad only. In essence, what the Government seemed to be wanting to say was that the word "limited" related to the exercise of emergency powers which was not full-blown, but rather was limited in order to telegraph the message that there was still more that could be done.
Other interpretations of a limited state of emergency over the years would relate to geographical limitations for the emergency itself such as the geographical limitation of the state of emergency in the late 1970s to deal with the problems of the aftermath of a bomb on a Cubana Airlines flight (which limited the emergency to Piarco Airport). Social activist Clive Nunez speaking on radio last week was very detailed about the various states of emergency that have been implemented. There had been recommendations for a state of emergency in the early 1990s to deal with a possible outbreak of cholera (which was declined) or the use of a state of emergency to deal with an alleged outbreak of polio in the early 1970s, which saw the postponement of Carnival in 1972 to the month of May.
For whatever reason over the years, the public has always had to trust the judgement of those in government on the issue of a state of emergency. Whether it was for polio, the Speaker of the House (1995), violent crime or insurrection, the intelligence that has been gathered has always been used to maintain public safety. It is inevitable that the issue of race will always arise as a criticism of public policy measures regardless of whichever party is in power. This has become part of the mosaic of political enquiry in our society. All governments have had to defend it, which tells us that it is easily intertwined in the vocabulary of protest.
Perhaps, the issue of communities becoming safer is the only antidote for the complaints of the race argument being advanced about the predominance of those persons who are being arrested and detained. The flip side of that argument is the fact that the communities where many of those persons have come from have become safer. Everyone has the right to a fair trial in this country and the judicial process will take its course depending upon the evidence that is produced. The people of this country have suffered for too long. As someone who was not convinced in 2004 that this was the way to go in favour of trying other policy options, I certainly am convinced that the current action being taken holds great promise for the reconstruction of the society on the basis of addressing the root causes of crime.
It is not about constructing more jails and capturing an endless flow of young criminals who have been turned towards a life of crime by those who would seek to exploit them. Destroying and disrupting organised crime networks through arrest, detention or migration of criminals will have a positive impact on society. However, the introduction of social programmes for youths can provide them with an alternative in life, together with strong role models and mentoring at-risk youths can make a difference when combined with other policy measures.