Protests over the crime situation are good but we need much more than these.
There are three sources of power involved in crime-fighting: institutional, civil society and individual. Institutional powers are found in government ministries, departments, units, authorities, the opposition, parliament, etc. Civil society powers are found in organisations such as community interest groups, faith-based groups, private sector, etc. The power of the individuals is that of citizens in their own capacity.
In the ideal world, when these three powers unite for a common cause, in this case, crime-fighting, there would be positive results. But we have to ask the hard question: what’s the likelihood that all three powers will agree on what’s to be done? All three will agree on the end result, ie, a safer and more secure society, but will differ on how we are to reach there.
In this triangulated interconnectedness, is this power shared equally? No! The institutions possess most power. They set the laws and implement them; they control the resources and direct them.
Therefore, what can civil society and individuals do in crime-fighting? Certainly, at a minimum they can let their voices be heard on what they’ll like to see happening but they’ve no authority in implementing anything. They can be involved in consultations but cannot direct the final policy. They cannot say that they want more of this and less of that. The real power they have is via the electoral process.
Interestingly, many of these very same individuals and civil society members are also employed in the institutions. So what do they do? They can make suggestions in their various state organisations but have no power to approve them. Mainly, such policies are left to the government of the day. Therefore, in the end, it’s the government and parliamentary process that are responsible for our safety and well-being.
Civil society and individuals can do some things on their own. They must use the system as far as possible to deal with crime. They can establish community watch groups, report matters to the various authorities, follow up with them as far as possible, take personal security and safety measures, etc.
They can also put legitimate pressure on the various institutions to do what they ought to do. Further, they can call for their inclusion as far as possible in the fight against crime since it concerns them directly.
There are also some independent institutions involved in crime fighting that civil society and individuals can align themselves too, eg, the police service. With strategic partnerships, there can be successes.
However, there is only so far and much that civil society and individuals can go and do. They lack the required resources. They can protest, ask questions, make representations. And then what? They can be invited to be part of committees, working groups. And then what? As a society, we’re easily pacified by the institutions. What’s required is a clear understanding and subsequent plan of action of what can and cannot civil society and individuals do regarding the crime situation.
Civil society and individuals don’t have a collective agreement, like the various unions and associations, to strike if its demands aren’t meet! If they stop reporting matters to the police it will make matters worse. If they stop being witnesses, the situation will be worsened. They have to continue to live and work in society as normal. The only agreement that exists is the electoral process whereby elections are due every five years or if called earlier.
The main thrust required therefore is to get civil society and individuals to play a more critical role in policy development and implementation planning. They can’t be reduced to just protesting agents alone. The institutions must know that for any policy to be successful, they must have buy-in from these other two sets of powers—civil society and individuals.
What can be done in moving forward? It should be legislated that civil society and individuals play a mandatory role in policy formulation, planning of implementation strategies, and where possible, in the implementation aspects, and most certainly in evaluative components.
In the end, the institutions are setting all of these policies for the benefit of citizens so why not have them involved in the very beginning? They possess remarkable ideas and solutions!
How can this be done? Ensure that all laws have the input of civil society and individuals. In theory, the parliamentary system, whereby the MP consults with the constituents before he debates a bill, doesn’t occur. Let’s be real. How many of us can say that their MP asked for their views on a bill? The response will be close to zero per cent. Therefore, the parliamentary system must be reformed to factor this in. Referenda can be an important tool here.
Then, there are experts in civil society and as individuals who aren’t in state institutions, who can contribute immensely to the drafting of these policies as well as implementation and evaluation. They must be given an opportunity to make their contribution.
If we continue with how things are normally conducted on these critical matters, we’ll get nowhere. We need these types of reforms sooner than later!
The CISPS is a registered institution with the Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago (ACTT). Tel: 223-6999, 299-8635, info@caribbeansecurityinstitute.com or www.caribbeansecurityinstitute.com
