Horace Levy | Reframe the SOE dialogue to include social interventions

The state of emergency (SOE) debate has now openly become a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) - People's National Party (PNP) struggle, with an eye to the next general election. For one side, the SOE reduces murders hugely and responds to an emergency, defined as such by an extremely high homicide rate - to end the SOEs is to invite disaster. For the other side, murders can be reduced by a large enough security force, and this will meet the Constitution definition of emergency - an extended SOE is unconstitutional.

With neither side intending to compromise, it might be helpful to re-frame the dialogue from its exclusive focus on SOEs to the platform on which both sides already agree. It is that, what is required to resolve the nation's violence and murder addiction is some combination of security forces and social intervention. The issue then would be the content of each of these two clearly essential components - the level/kind of security forces and the level/kind of social intervention. Yes, the SOE issue will arise, but differently framed.

The security force component has already demonstrated in central Kingston, parts of St Catherine and elsewhere that firm community-based policing is effective. In central Kingston, murders (up to December 29, 2018) came down to 16, a nearly 41 per cent drop from 2017. Lakes Pen/Quarry Hill, near Spanish Town, recorded no murders for two years before the SOE came to that parish. Sufficient numbers for other volatile places is the aspect that can take some discussion.

The social intervention component could be more contentious. If a Gleaner report of December 29, 2018 is correct, National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang, in his attack on those calling for more of them, latched on to some items in one kind. I may be mistaken, but he does not appear to take kindly to the PMI (Peace Management Initiative) version.

The improvements in roads and housing to which the minister refers is part of the infrastructural betterment of lower-income communities, which is indeed essential for ending the neglect that several (e.g., Gleaner editorial, December 29, 2018) have identified as part of the social source of the violence. That is if the goal is not just to put up structures but to build community, which means involving it in planning, design and training along with employment.

Without that crucial proviso, this social intervention will be weak and have very little effect on the violence problem. It is only the kind practised by the PMI that has some short- to medium-term impact. It directly targets high-risk youth. Yet, even this approach is provisional, dependent in the longer term on stable employment, decent livelihood, housing, good clinics, and other physical infrastructure.

Direct focus

On the PMI intervention I have repeatedly written, but must describe again, even at the risk of boring some readers. The PMI focuses directly on the hundreds of highly at-risk youth in communities. Its front-line agents are civilian violence interrupters, who, from experience, are able to detect budding conflicts, and by simple street-side mediating conversations with the youth, prevent weapons being drawn. PMI's other agents are social workers who, with community activities, guide local leaders into rebuilding depleted social capital.

This can be dangerous work, given the several diverse forces of power and money that thrive on the violence. But it is effective, as also is another PMI tool, the camps. These take 50 high-risk youth at a time out of their communities for four days of strict discipline, information and psychological interviews to produce the files on each that will guide the chosen follow-up action under case managers. It is PMI's input, in combination with community policing, that produced the results referred to above in central Kingston and St Catherine.

Concluding words

In the current stand-off between the Government and Opposition, the concluding words of Vold's Theoretical Criminology, which strongly promotes theories with relevance to practice, are pertinent. "In the past, crime policies have often been the product of political ideology. Conservatives favoured some policies while liberals favoured others. Neither ... were particularly interested in research ... Today, both liberals and conservatives increasingly rely on criminology theory and research to support their recommendations about crime policy ... On the basis of this research, liberals and conservatives now tend to agree on at least some crime control policies. For example, at the moment both... seem to favour the prevention policies that focus on early childhood..." (p 364)

Since the publication of this book (sixth edition) in 2010, the United States has become so ideologically polarised that one must wonder if today any agreement on crime exists between Republicans and Democrats. Can we in Jamaica do better? Can Labourites and Socialists come to any agreement on the best practices of PMI and the research conclusions of the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) set out in its Community Renewal Programme (CRP)?

In 2010, Bruce Golding, as prime minister, directed the PIOJ to design the CRP. Over several years, with contributions from many quarters, the CRP has evolved into a rounded plan that coordinates state, civil society and private-sector inputs. It has been applied since then in only a single community, 'Back-To' or Majesty Gardens, in the constituency of former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller. It is time for a very much wider and non-partisan application.

- Horace Levy is a human-rights advocate. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and halpeace.levy78@gmail.com.