Invariably when confronted with a crisis, the Government’s response often is to appoint a committee, thus appearing progressive and measured, allowing the matter to be studied and appropriate recommendations devised. That is the theory. In practice, committees generate reports which must be reviewed, analysed, and like many Commissions of Inquiry reports, shelved.
What measures have been proposed, adopted and implemented by the many committees appointed by this administration? For example, the Economic Advisory Board (EAB), the Watkins Committee, the Roadmap Committee, and Vision 2030 in particular? The EAB resigned in frustration, its advice ignored. Neither the Watkins committee nor the Roadmap committee reports have been published to our knowledge. Vision 2030 has not been incorporated into a comprehensive set of policy measures to drive the Government’s development agenda.
The Prime Minister’s New Year’s message was complimented by a wide-ranging interview published in another newspaper on January 1. He noted that he reflected deeply on the crime situation "for quite a while." He acknowledged violent crime as an issue with which all governments have been struggling and that "nobody has been successful and therefore…actions we have been taking have not been sufficient." Further, he has resisted calls to change the National Security Minister because he had asked himself "…who was the good minister?" Meaning that no minister had been able to successfully address the crime issue.
He noted that the Government has provided the kind of resources the country could afford. He highlighted that a significant barrier to successfully containing crime was the level of corruption and the country’s unproductive systems which required adjustment. He elaborated by indicating that a significant number of uniformed officers (soldiers or police officers) were running afoul of the law and the porous prison security system. He opined that the Government had a limited interventionist role and cannot interfere in the management of public services, including the uniformed services. Therefore, a minister could not be responsible for disciplinary failures. By extension, neither could the Prime Minister.
In summary, the Prime Minister was identifying management issues, systems, processes, and people weaknesses. The job of management is never finished. Systems and processes periodically require adjustment to adequately address societal and environmental changes which make them less functional. Having identified many relevant issues and having "reflected deeply," he gave no hint that he had considered any approach to addressing what he identified as systemic weaknesses and failures.
Instead, he floated a proposal to facilitate a national discourse on the matter of national safety and security from which would come a document to facilitate further discussion and consensus building. After seven years in office, another talk shop? To achieve complicity by consensus?
Dr Rowley is the longest-serving Member of Parliament (36 years) and is in his second term as Prime Minister. It would be astonishing if he did not understand that the Prime Minister is responsible for the conduct of the nation’s affairs, the parameters within which Cabinet must operate, or that any ministerial failure reflects on his judgement. He has been having "conversations" with the public since assuming office in 2015. Therefore, it is difficult to view his proposal for national dialogue as anything other than an attempt to deflect, delay, deny, discount, discredit or diminish public criticism for his failure to address the key issues in a holistic and systematic manner.