I make the hypothesis that as a country we haven’t been able to solve the problem of too many of our young people getting enmeshed in a life of violent crime—via guns, drugs, and gangs —and ruining and foreshortening their futures and others’ as well. And I am thinking that it is so serious that, to paraphrase the singer Ella Andall, we are missing and losing whole generations out there. For if we cannot save our young, what’s the point of carrying on?
How are the mainstream political parties approaching the problem going forward?
I have been scouring the web, including Facebook, to see, but what I have found is not particularly inspiring.
At the time of writing, the PNM’s 2020 manifesto was not ready and so I went back to the 2015 one which they turned into government policy. There, under the heading ‘Taking Early Action to Prevent Crime’, I read, among other things, that they would ‘tackle Youth Criminality head-on through the implementation of preventative actions that take into account the broad range of underlying personal [issues] (low attainment, problematic behaviour, bullying), parenting (inconsistent parenting, poor mental health, domestic violence) and family (socioeconomic stress, poor neighbourhood conditions) risk factors involved in youth offending and antisocial behaviour in an attempt to tackle emerging problems before they become serious and entrenched.’
There is clearly a recognition that the pertinent issues are educational, sociological, and psychological. There are too many young people living in chronically depressed communities where the range of choices for a better life is distinctly limited. Some of the state solutions are pursuit of short courses offered by the state and becoming members of police youth clubs and the Cadet Force, as the manifesto recognises. But over the years, these interventions have not yielded significant results, suggesting the need for more comprehensive solutions that address both the economic and psycho-social consequences of household and community poverty.
Are they being monitored by the state so that other interventions—including starting a technical-vocational track from primary school, beefing up parental and community support, provision of restorative counselling—can be made until the problem is mitigated and socially healthy paths are chosen?
What are the PNM’s ‘preventative actions’?
It would be helpful if the government could give an account of how their policy in this regard fared and what adjustments are necessary.
When I went to the UNC website, I found no statement on how they would tackle crime in their Economic Masterplan. But on their Facebook page, there was a presentation on an eight-point anti-crime plan. The presentation did not mention youthful criminality but it provided the following points: ‘zoning of areas based on spatial analyses of murders and crimes’, ‘use of armoured patrol vehicles’, ‘introduction of enhanced surveillance systems using area patrol, satellite feed and drones’, ‘restructuring the National Security Ministry to form a Ministry of Home Affairs and a Ministry of Defence’, giving ‘the armed forces’ powers of arrest.
There is nothing in this plan that speaks to the causes of crime and how to eradicate them. Rather, the plan tackles crime by dealing with its effects through detection, surveillance, prevention, and arrest. Patrol a zoned area (hotspot?) with armed police, soldiers, and sailors, as well as armoured vehicles. Send in drones to gather data and intelligence. Send in the police to quell a disturbance by making arrests.
This is our traditional way of dealing with crime over at least the last three decades: use public policy and money to moderate the effects.
If the UNC has plans to deal with how poor schooling, inattentive homes, and poverty seriously hamper life choices for young people and with how we must proceed with changing these causes, I have not seen it in plain terms. Perhaps it is to be found in, or must be derived from, their 12 engines of prosperity?
It cannot be denied that educational reform is a necessary solution. The current educational system is unbalanced in that it focuses mostly on what we may call ‘the academic track’ from early childhood to tertiary education. It is designed at all levels to facilitate a narrow range of professional interests and careers in domains such as: the public service; law; medicine; engineering; the social sciences; and accounting. Except for the vocational professions, such as law, medicine, and engineering, the focus of the system is mostly on theoretical understanding rather than on practical skills and data processing. Further, the entire system focuses on supplying the local market. There is no significant export dimension.
There is need for a track that services professional interests and careers in the modern high-income industries of sports, the carnival industries of music and entertainment, the arts, cultural activity and fashion, and industrialised tourism.
There is also need for a track that services the engineering arts and allied occupations, such as mechanical fitter, electrician, construction and maintenance worker, and back office worker and related business management/marketing occupations.
But for the reforms to work, early intervention (before or at age 13) is critical to arrest the damaging economic and psycho-social effects of household and community poverty.
This is not a solution for the police, is it?