There is value in the Holness-Phillips talk
THE SENSE is that of the cart having bolted and the horse attempting to catch up. But the contrary nature of things notwithstanding, we believe that there is potential value in the proposed meeting between Prime Minister Andrew Holness and the opposition leader, Peter Phillips, about the lapsing states of emergency, although their get-together is unlikely to change much on that front.
For, having withdrawn their support for continuing the emergency measures, it would be politically costly for Dr Phillips and his People’s National Party (PNP) to reverse their position, which Mr Holness is inviting them to do. The Opposition would feel themselves to be marionettes and Mr Holness their marionettist.
Moreover, the PNP would have abandoned any claim that its decision to abandon support for the states of emergency was an act of principle, founded in its respect for, and protection of, individuals’ freedoms that are the foundation of democracy. Their behaviour, rather, would have been a cynical and manipulative move to thwart the administration’s efforts at fighting crime and to ingratiate themselves into segments of the society who believe they have been unfairly targeted by the emergency measures.
By the time the states of emergency end in January, those in the parish of St James and the North St Catherine Police Division will have been in force for a year, and the one in areas for western Kingston for three months. On the face of it, they have been successful. Nationally, murders are down, year-on-year, by 21 per cent, while in St James they have tumbled by two-thirds. They, understandably, are popular.
We, however, have been uneasy with the use of these emergency – especially the enormous powers provided to the security forces to detain persons without access to the courts – as a normal tool of crime-fighting. And, as have the Opposition, we have questioned whether it was the deployment of these powers, as opposed to the heavy concentration of police and soldiers in the targeted communities, which can happen as normal administrative exercises, that was responsible for the fall in murders. The Government insists it’s the whole package.
But analysis by the Office of the Public Defender suggests that the use of these powers have been used in a sweeping, rather than targeted, fashion. Of the nearly 3,700 persons detained in St James up the first week of October, a mere two per cent were charged with serious crimes.
NO IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
There is, in the circumstances, legitimacy to question whether the detentions were intelligenceled, or arbitrary. Further, neither the Government nor the security forces have provided an in-depth analysis of the data to show what they consider to be the most efficacious elements of the emergency powers, or how all the elements worked together. Mr Holness has talked, frighteningly, of having to free various criminals who will incite mayhem.
The administration perhaps have the disaggregated data, and other compelling argumentation, in favour of continuing the states of emergency. Given its inability, on its own, to muster the two-thirds parliamentary majority required for their extension, and the Opposition having long signalled it had no more appetite for the measures, we would have expected that Prime Minister Holness, assuming the information was too sensitive to be publicly revealed, to initiate backroom talks with Dr Phillips. That didn’t happen.
The prime minister has said that his recent discussions with various stakeholders underlined their wish for the emergency measures to continue. Dr Phillips says he found no such consensus in his meetings with various groups. On that basis, agreement between the Government and Opposition will be difficult.
However, when people talk they are in a better position to solve problems. Sometimes they discover new approaches to old issues. That is why we advocated the resumption of the Vale Royal Talks between the Government and Opposition, and why we support this dialogue.