A crisis of terrorism

The Americans had their 9-11 event, which spurred them to create the Department of Homeland Security, and to pass anti-terrorism legislation which affects us as we visit the USA. The sight of commercial airliners plowing into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City, and the Pentagon in Virginia, near Washington DC, was enough for them to decide they were in crisis, and to force them to take extreme measures to protect themselves. In the September 11, events, 2,995 persons were killed (out of a population of 282 million people).

In 2005 Jamaica had 1,674 murders, and the highest murder rate, per capita, in the world. Last year (2009), the year the USA issued a request for the extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, Jamaica (with a population of 2.7 million people) experienced 1,680 murders for a national record. Of all the countries in the world, we ranked 21st in the absolute number of murders (India, with a population of 1.1 billion people, had 37,170 murders in 2009). One of the reasons we have maintained such a high murder rate is that we have not treated it as a national crisis, but as 'business as usual'.

Do we have a crime problem in Jamaica, or a problem with terrorism? We have avoided this question because we are more interested in protecting our fragile tourism industry than our citizens. On May 23 we could no longer avoid the question. We were clearly facing an insurgency, as well-organised gunmen allied to the JLP garrison of Tivoli Gardens attacked the Denham Town, Darling Street, Fletcher's Land and Hannah Town police stations, setting two of them ablaze. We clearly had a crisis on our hands. Such a powerful challenge to the authority of the state required a powerful response.

States within states

But the truth is that the authority of the State had long been challenged - and in fact bypassed - by the garrison phenomenon. The People's National Party (PNP) and Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) garrisons were states within states, where the elected government had been superseded by the don and his henchmen, with the real, if tacit, support of the party machinery.

The widespread extortion - taxation of legitimate business to fund garrison rule - was an open secret, and many public servants were in on it. Drug and arms trafficking also contributed resources to the garrison project. Since the challenge was not flagrant - in your face - as long as officialdom ignored it, it could continue. And this included ignoring the USA's requesting the extradition of the garrison leader.

Things were going fairly well until the police stations were attacked. That was too "in-your-face"; it could not be ignored. That triggered the state of emergency which had the support of everyone. The Jamaican power elite above the clock were not discomfited, as long as the militias stayed underground, terrorising and intimidating people below the clock. But the militias crossed a line, and the tacit support of the politicians had to be withdrawn to save face.

No purging

In the interim, there has been some progress at demilitarising the garrisons - but not much. The police are making an effort, but on the political level there has not been much progress at all. There has been no purge of tainted individuals, no rush to break the link between politics and crime by introducing transparent campaign financing. In fact, the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips imbroglio (the unknown source of the two-known payments made) has exposed how opaque political financing really is in this country, and how much change is really needed. Don't expect the PNP to come clean on Trafigura.

Why did the PNP abstain on the vote to extend the state of emergency this week? If they were against it, if they believed it was breaching the rights of Jamaican citizens, why not vote against it? Abstaining is 'don'kya' behaviour, not a positive statement by a government in waiting.

Make no mistake, murders are down but Jamaica is still in crisis. Both the PNP and the JLP still have well-armed militias, in a state of strategic withdrawal, a sort of temporary demobilisation as they seek to weather the present purge. They will be needed for the coming elections, and, no doubt, they will soon resume their places defending their garrisons.

I am pleased that the state of emergency has not been extended, by default or otherwise. I believe we need special measures to deal with the crisis of political terrorism we are still experiencing. A state of emergency is not the answer.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a natural resource manager. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com