Jaristotle's Jottings | National security needs a minister, not a politician

Last week, I cautioned that with the political parties moving into election mode, we should expect higher than normal incidents of influence-wielding and vote-garnering strategies on the part of our politicians, whether in opposition or in government.

Imprudent behaviour

Consider the call by Opposition Leader Dr Peter Phillips for the government to roll back the GCT by 2 per cent, a call that was pooh-poohed by his own opposition senator, economist, Dr Andre Haughton, who highlighted on the ramifications of such a rollback. Dr Haughton then shot himself in the foot by suggesting that Dr Phillips’ call was intended to bait the government.

Well, it may come across to some as mere political chess-playing, but for those of us ordinary Jamaicans who stand to lose out on such imprudent calls coming into being, I encourage our politicians to ensure brains are engaged before putting mouth in gear and to approach matters of national importance in a more responsible manner.

That episode was somewhat laughable, because the call from the Opposition went unheeded. However, when those in government make similarly imprudent calls and decide upon corresponding courses of action, the matter is far less laughable.

Bewildering decisions

Dr Horace Chang, the minister of national security, has decided upon a course of action that will effectively drive a death-like nail in the coffin of the Peace Management Initiative (PMI), having posited to Parliament that social intervention programmes, such as the PMI, are not working. With the PMI having been advised that the government will significantly reduce funding come next year, they now face a major dilemma.

The likely effect of such a cutback is that the PMI will have to withdraw from violence interruption and conflict resolution programmes currently being managed in some 40-plus volatile communities islandwide.

Over the last decade, the PMI has undertaken numerous community interventions, settling issues that would have otherwise been resolved through violence. Why then would Dr Chang deem it ‘useless’?

It appears that two issues have led to the demise of the PMI’s funding: politics and Dr Chang’s personal views which supersede objectivity. First, the Opposition called for increased funding for the PMI, hence the politics of the decision. Second, the PMI often engages people with known, or suspected, criminal links to facilitate their violence interruption and conflict resolution initiatives, a strategy which Dr Chang does not support.

It is ironic that Dr Chang has not tendered such staunch opposition to the relationship between members of his own party and known gangsters in their quest to impose vote-garnering influence over various communities, neither have I heard him calling for the expulsion of party members who are widely known to be so inclined towards alliances with persons of nefarious character.

There are more interesting aspects to the decision to cut the PMI’s funding. Those funds will now go towards propping up elements of the security forces, rehabilitating police stations, improving schools and other social amenities in communities. All this to be done under the cover of extended states of emergency (SOEs) and zones of special operations (ZOSOs).

Remember my words about ‘feel good spending’ and the need for politicians to be in the good books of the police? Well, thar she blows. Looking after the police force is important, but it should not come at the expense of non-security initiatives which complement the police’s own community policing strategy.

What’s the point in improving schools and other social amenities in violence-ravaged communities? The current SOEs and ZOSOs distort the true picture: what will that picture be when the band- aid security presence dissipates?

In my opinion, politician Chang is making decisions in the absence of an objective minister, the sort of minister we need at this juncture.

Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.