Soon after the Speaker of the National Assembly Mr Hari Narayen ‘Ralph’ Ramkarran called for “a high degree of national unity in order to bring criminals to justice,” and after pointing out that poverty was one of the main root causes of crime, he was roundly contradicted by his colleagues in the People’s Progressive Party-Civic.
Addressing the 38th anniversary republic celebrations organised by the Guyanese-American Cultural Association of Central Florida in Orlando, Mr Ramkarran affirmed his belief that “national unity is indispensable to the resolution of our political and social problems including the plague of criminality which we now face…In all of this, we must not forget that it is the continuing existence of poverty which drives feelings of marginalization and insecurity. At the end of the day, it is poverty which is one of the main root causes of crime.”
Mr Ramkarran’s supposition about the relationship between poverty and crime and his suggestion about where the administration should direct its attention seemed not to have been shared by others in the top echelons of his party. The next week, People’s Progressive Party-Civic General Secretary Mr Donald Ramotar told the National Assembly that “the gangs that have been carrying out ruthless killings are not ordinary gangs and their actions should not be linked to poverty.” He was followed by Minister of Home Affairs Mr Clement Rohee who, while acknowledging that there was some correlation between crime and poverty, described some criminals as “para-military operatives who have their dubious political-ideological masters to guide them in their killer operations.”
The point can be easily proven that poverty on its own does not cause crime. It is quite apparent, however, that intense poverty, extensive under-education and chronic under-employment have spawned a huge reservoir of recruits for the criminal gangs. Put in its correct historical context rather than as a response to one or two specific crimes, Mr Ramkarran’s theory therefore deserves some consideration. It has added a refreshing rationality to the rancorous rows over the appropriate counter-crime strategy.
From the floor of the National Assembly, Mr Rohee recited a long funeral list of suspects – including Shawn Brown, Troy Dick, Andrew Douglas, Mark Fraser, Dale Moore, and many others – who had been slain by the security forces over the years. He seems not to have understood that killing suspects and solving crimes are different matters. The present state of criminal violence in this country shows that killings have not enhanced public safety.
In similar vein, President Bharrat Jagdeo called the criminals “psychopaths who should be hunted down and killed.” Adding his voice to the poverty-causes-crime debate, the president accused some media houses and the people behind them of trying to find a justification for the killings. “They say there is a root cause for this. It is because the PPP is marginalising 50 per cent of the population.” But the president should realise that the quest for causation is different from the desire for justification. It is evident, however, that official responses to criminal violence and the huge amount of killing over the past seven years of the Jagdeo administration have done little to extirpate criminal violence. Rather, as Bartica and Lusignan indicate, things have gotten worse. It is time to try another approach.
Mr Ramkarran’s second recommendation – that a high degree of national unity is needed to bring criminals to justice – was attempted in the stakeholders’ consultations earlier in March. Significantly, the stakeholders ensured that the communiqué reflected their demand for inclusivity and good governance even more than their concern about crime.
They demanded, for example, the establishment of a parliamentary constitutional reform committee, a standing sectoral committee on national security and the appointments of the six constitutional commissions, among other things.
If they felt that these measures would contribute either to the short-term task of quelling criminal violence or the long-term goal of national unity, they should think again. This administration cynically made similar unfulfilled promises five years ago!
The public is tired of the attempts to keep the country disunited, even in times of crisis and catastrophe. The perceptive Mr Jimmy Carter saw through the entire political charade. He was obliged to remark, after what he called a ‘sobering’ visit in August 2004, “Except among a few political party leaders, there have been almost universal expressions of concern about the present condition and future hopes of Guyana, based on a failure of political leaders to heal the incompatibility and animosity that characterize their relationship… Instead of achieving this crucial goal of inclusive and shared governance, the Guyanese government remains divided with a winner-take-all concept that continues to polarize many aspects of the nation’s life.”
The need for national unity to resolve the country’s social and political problems and tackling the question of poverty, as recommended by Mr Ramkarran, deserve serious consideration by the administration.
