We Jamaicans seem to have an almost infinite capacity to dance around important issues while avoiding addressing them head on.
I can easily understand this, for many of us are selfish enough to want changes that suit us, but wish to avoid the sort of change that may cause us pain, even if it also means social progress.
We want change, as long as it does not mean serious change for us, change in our privileges, change in our lifestyles, change in our relative social status. The change we want is really change for somebody else.
Began with politicians
It is well accepted that Jamaica's serious crime problems began when politicians of both sides gave out guns to their supporters and started turf wars.
Very few politicians will seriously deny this, but their present excuse is that they are not to blame for what is happening now because they have lost control of their henchmen, who are using their weapons to 'freelance' with contract killing and general crime.
And so, whereas there is talk about "getting the guns off the street", nobody is talking about bringing to book those who gave out the guns in the first place or, at least, taking away their undeserved OJs and OMs and CDs. That issue is studiously avoided.
The police say that a large number of our present murders are inter- and intra-gang conflict with serialised reprisals. And all of these gangs have a connection either with the People's National Paty (PNP) or the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Some of the 'dons' are party 'area leaders', and many gang-members are on one, or the other, rung in the local party hierarchy, receiving 'contracts' for work to be done or not to be done as the case may be.
Shadowy link
There is a link, however tenuous and shadowy, between politicians and these gangs. All of these gun-toting gang members are known to the politicians, or could be known, if the right question was asked of the right person. Maybe politicians purposely do not ask too many questions so that they can honestly say that they do not know certain things but they could know if they wanted.
For example, it is well appreciated that the One Order Gang is JLP-affiliated while the Clansmen are PNP-affiliated. The only reason they can continue to operate openly is because politicians of both parties maintain them as clients and offer them some protection, even the oversight of a blind eye.
Blind eyes allow illegal bus parks to go unnoticed, and whole storeys of hotels to be built illegally. And blind eyes allow gangs to carry guns and fire guns in the name of politics. Blind eyes allow politicians to be able to say that they know nothing about it!
Blind eyes, in the past, allowed ballot boxes to be stuffed with 106 per cent of the possible votes by innumerate party hacks. And blind eyes allowed those presiding officers and poll clerks to be paid for their work well done. And blind eyes allow garrison politicians to sit in Gordon House, and for some to be called 'Honourable'.
Stirring up hornet's nest
Why are we avoiding the issue of the link between politics and crime, and that many of these politicians know more than they are telling? Expect more 'peace treaties' with the guns still hidden under the beds. You cannot expect the people who created the problem to properly fix it.
I remember, a few years ago, the incumbent commissioner of lands was found to have transferred land improperly to politically connected persons, and to his wife under her maiden name. The transfers were never reversed, because it would have stirred up a hornet's nest. What other land would then have to be given back?
Political garrisons were created in like manner, with party hacks being given land or put in possession of land to create monolithic voting blocs.
As much as dismantling gang structures, dismantling garrisons means pulling up the partisan land allocation and starting over.
Avoiding issue
That is the social intervention we really need. But if we start to right the historical wrongs to do with land, where might that not stop? That issue will certainly be studiously avoided.
We want to bring down our ultra-high crime and murder rates while leaving everything else the same. It's simply not going to work!
Preventive detention, of criminals, will only create a vacuum for others to move into.
But I'm sure we'll avoid that issue also.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist of sustainable development. For feedback, email: columns@gleanerjm.com.
