Trinidad and Tobago’s crime problem has claimed lives, shattered families, destabilised communities and undermined public confidence in the ability of the State to provide security. In the face of such a crisis, political point-scoring is a luxury this country can no longer afford.
This week’s parliamentary debate on the extension of the State of Emergency offered a reminder that crime is not, and should never become, a partisan issue. Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles was correct when she observed that bullets do not ask whether a victim supports the People’s National Movement (PNM) or the United National Congress (UNC). Criminals do not check constituency boundaries before they strike. Violence affects citizens in every community, regardless of race, geography, class or political allegiance.
Her comments should also serve as a challenge to both the Government and the Opposition. If there is genuine agreement that crime is among the country’s greatest threats, then that consensus must be translated into meaningful cooperation.
There is ample evidence that such cooperation is possible.
One of the strongest examples came in 2018, when the then PNM government and the UNC opposition reached a compromise that allowed the Anti-Gang Act to pass. The legislation had initially failed because of disagreements over key provisions. However, negotiations followed. The government accepted amendments, including a shorter sunset clause, and the opposition provided the support required for passage. Both sides adjusted their positions because they recognised that the national interest demanded it.
That was not an isolated case. The original Anti-Gang Act was introduced by the UNC-led People’s Partnership administration in 2011. When the PNM later assumed office, it retained and supported aspects of the legislation because it believed the law remained an important weapon against organised criminal activity. Successive administrations of different political persuasions have also backed restrictions on bail for serious firearms offences, reflecting a shared belief that stronger measures were needed to confront violent crime.
There have been other efforts as well. In 2023, then Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley invited Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar to participate in discussions on crime-fighting strategies. While that initiative did not produce transformative results, it demonstrated a recognition that national security challenges require engagement across political lines.
Even during periods of heightened security concerns, both major parties have at times supported emergency measures when they believed circumstances warranted extraordinary action.
These examples prove that cooperation is not impossible. The problem is that such collaboration has too often been temporary, reluctant and driven by immediate necessity rather than sustained commitment. Neither the Government nor the Opposition possesses a monopoly on good ideas. Effective crime reduction requires legislation, policing reforms, intelligence gathering, border security, social intervention programmes, judicial efficiency and community partnerships. No single party has all the answers.
Citizens are increasingly weary of political exchanges that generate headlines but fail to produce lasting solutions. They want results. They want safer streets. They want fewer murders, fewer guns and fewer grieving families.
The Government must genuinely engage the Opposition when crafting major crime initiatives. The Opposition, in turn, must be prepared to support sensible measures while holding the Government accountable where necessary. Cooperation does not mean blind endorsement. It means recognising that national security takes precedence over party interests.
Crime is an enemy of every citizen. The fight against it must become a truly national effort.
