EDITORIAL - Damion Crawford: callow or calculating?

Having been parachuted, almost, into Parliament and a ministerial post, Damion Crawford is proving himself to be juvenile and, perhaps, callow.

The latest manifestation of the junior tourism minister's sophomoric tendencies was his tweet last week calling for the closure of the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and his subsequent attempt, in a radio interview, to defend his position with a sophist's argument.

All the while, Mr Crawford appeared unaware of the blurred lines between his personal views, especially on matters of public policy, and those he articulates as a member of the political executive, in the context of the Westminster system of government and its notion of collective responsibility.

This matter ought, perhaps, to raise for Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller the need for a policy on public pronouncements by members of her government, especially with regard to their use of social media.

INDECOM was established to probe allegations of abuse by the security forces, as well as their killing of citizens during the performance of their duties. This came about because of the high levels of police homicides in Jamaica, many of them claimed to be extrajudicial, and a collapse of public confidence in the police to investigate themselves.

INDECOM is three years old. The legislation under which it was set up is being reviewed. There has been a campaign by the police to scrap the agency, arguing, as Mr Crawford did in a tweet, that it demotivates police personnel, causing them "not to be proactive, or even reactive, but inactive".

But alliteration does not imbue a statement with logic. So, Mr Crawford, in subsequent interviews, illogically highlighted the continued high level of police homicides as evidence of the failure of INDECOM.

Building confidence

What he failed to offer is comparative data on police personnel who, since INDECOM, have been fully investigated and made to face the courts if they are deemed to have broken the law. The numbers on those who are vindicated by the agency are also important.

The point Mr Crawford misses in his dash into the dark, thick foliage of ingratiating is that while accountability is unaccustomed and, initially, burdensome for the constabulary, the value of INDECOM is the confidence it builds in the process.

Increasingly, the citizenry will believe that there are consequences for arbitrary behaviour by the security forces, who, in turn, will operate in accordance with the law for fear of being held to account. That is a virtuous circle.

But we may be missing the essence of Mr Crawford's role in this issue. Is it that he is the stalking horse for a government wanting to be rid of INDECOM?

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.