Commentary

Shirley Richards, Contributor

"I sanctioned it." These three words will be indelibly etched in our minds for decades to come - an ounce of truth in the midst of spin and lies. "I sanctioned it," but not as prime minister only as party chief - compartmentalisation born of convenience.

This moment represents a watershed moment for us as a country. We either seize the moment to break both the rule of the gun and the link between politics and criminality, or we can continue with business as usual. Knowledge of the truth of a situation is vital for a society that would want to remain free - without truth there is no freedom. Once the society got this ounce of truth, the demands for the prime minister's resignations were torrential, leading to a sequence of events which resulted in the 'nerve centre' of crime being broken, to use the words of one of our local analysts.

Maybe it was intended that the utterance of the words "I sanctioned it" would have had a gavel-like effect. Instead, they galvanised civil society into a massive show of solidarity not heretofore seen. What has happened in the country over the last few weeks reminds one of the words of Vaclav Havel, who became president of Czechoslovakia after the Velvet Revolution in 1989. In his essay entitled 'The Power of the Powerless' he wrote :

"For the crust presented by the life of lies is made of strange stuff. As long as it seals hermetically the entire society, it appears to be made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out "the emperor is naked!" - when a single person breaks the rules of the game, thus exposing it as a game - everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably." (Quoted by Dr Os Guinness in Time for Truth)

As a society, we had believed a big lie, which was that the monster of crime was so big and its tentacles were so deep and powerful that it could not be slain. Now, we are beginning to see the truth - that, in fact, the monster can be slain.

Our officials knew what to do about crime and garrisons - so did we. There is no shortage of studies on the subject. What was missing all along was the political will to fight crime. Be reminded of the words of former Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe:

"Several reports have been written. There is no lack of information on the subject. What has been lacking is the political will to implement the recommendations of previous task forces. With limited resources at their disposal, successive governments have failed to afford the problem of crime and the criminal justice system the priority they deserve." (Report of the National Task Force on Crime 1993).

In similar vein, Dr Amanda Sives, lecturer in politics at the University of Liverpool, in an article published in The Sunday Times (London) on May 28, wrote: "Both political parties have failed to act, despite numerous commit-ments. Until they seriously and publicly disengage from criminal elements, the State will continue to face these challenges and will fail to address them adequately. Political will and resources are essential if the garrisons are to be dismantled."

Lack of political will

On whose part was there a lack of political will? Was it on the part of the Government, or on the part of us the people? What is happening now is possibly more a test of our political character as a people than it is a test of the character of the prime minister. How important is truth-telling and transparency to us? How important is it that governments are free of any allegiance to persons with criminal intent? Obviously, it was not too important to us prior to this. How then, can we as a people pledge 'never again'?

Here are some suggestions:

1. Take the reward out of the alliance between politics and criminality. Professor Gayle's suggestion about eliminating the Constituency Development Fund has great merit. This will aid in eliminating the perception that our politicians are the distributors of "scarce benefits and spoils";

2. We will not give our votes to politicians who associate with dons and others of similar ilk. Attendance at funerals and having a drink at the local bar with dons must be things of the past;

3. If while you are in government it is found that you do have a link to criminality, we will demand your resignation;

4. Let's declare a national day of mourning, under God, as we mourn for all those who have been killed by violence in this country and as we recommit ourselves to the ideals of our pledge and national anthem and to living under the rule of law;

5. As a society, we need the means by which to ensure truth-telling and transparency in Government. Maybe we need an office akin to that of the contractor general. That office could also be responsible for auditing party financing;

6. Let's commit ourselves to the discipline of being individuals of truth where our word is our bond. We have to mean what we say and say what we mean.

Our vision for the future of this country will involve us starting somewhere. This, to my mind, is the biggest reason why the prime minister ought to resign - because we have to start with getting things right. The call for his resignation is not only about what has already taken place, it is more so about the future - what we want from our politicians henceforth.

We need to accept that the crisis consists of separate issues, one being that of crime and violence, and the other being that of the link between politics and criminal elements. As we deal with the crime issue, we must not let go of the remaining issue, otherwise the solidarity which was shown initially will really just have been a show.

Dealing with crime only is at the best a temporary measure, albeit an extremely welcome one, but we need to go further to institute measures which will assist with us finding permanent solutions. Only we as a people can effect change - if not now, then when?

Shirley Richards is an attorney-at -law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.