Admitting to difficulties in the implementation of the community action component of the proposed Citizens’ Security Programme, Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee last month accused the Inter-American Development Bank of attempting to define the realties in Guyana. According to Mr Rohee, “The Government of Guyana has taken a position that it wishes to redefine the community component of the Citizens’ Security Programme…We are not satisfied with how it is currently defined in the agreement.” Why has he chosen to make a public declamation on the issue at this time?
Mr Rohee has had all the time in the world to think about this programme. The IDB, as long ago as June 2006, announced the approval of a US$19.8 M loan to support the programme. In January 2007, Mr Rohee sat at the table at the very Ministry of Home Affairs alongside Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh and IDB resident representative Sergio Varas-Olea at the signing ceremony for the contract for the programme.
On that occasion, Mr Rohee declared that the programme had already been in the public domain “for some time now” and thanked the bank for making the loan which, he said, came at a time when the administration was working to implement all the aspects of police reform.” In February last year, Mr Rohee cheerfully cooed that a team at his ministry was “working hard on the plan.” All of a sudden, he finds it expedient to blame the bank for the non-implementation of the programme. Didn’t he read the agreement before he signed it?
The essence of Mr Rohee’s complaint is that the community action component requires this country to host consultants to conduct workshops and seminars. He thinks, however, that residents “do not need to be engaged in workshops, seminars or lectures, but require training in vocational skills.” And he argues, “We know what the realities are in Guyana, and we do not need the bank to tell us what the realities are. If we want the programme to be redefined, the bank has to redefine the programme to be consistent with the social and economic realties of Guyana.”
The Ministry of Home Affairs over the past decade has evinced the tendency to make up public safety policy on a day-by-day basis and to avoid adopting a coherent long-term strategy. This attitude led to the employment of the Peruvian Leonardo Caparros Gamarra and the attempted appointment of American Bernard Kerik. It has also led to the adoption of a rash of half-baked security schemes such as the Neighbourhood Policing Programme, Community Policing Groups and Crime Stoppers Scheme.
Meanwhile, the recommendations of a roomful of reports of the National Steering Committee on Crime, the Disciplined Forces Commission and of numerous studies from United Kingdom experts, including from the Metropolitan Police and the Scottish Police College remain unimplemented.
The Citizens’ Security Programme is predicated on fostering dialogue with the people, a disposition rarely displayed either by the ministry or the police force. If it is to succeed, the programme must establish community action councils to initiate discussions and arrive at solutions which are community-owned, community-led and community-driven, not ministry mandated. The programme must encourage popular participation by employing community action officers to help to organise residents into groups to find local solutions to criminal violence.
The police force itself must change the culture and conduct of policemen who deal with the public on a daily basis. The Ministry of Home Affairs, also, must adopt modern managerial structures and systems to develop policies to fight criminal violence. These are the realities of the public safety environment today.
These are Mr Rohee’s responsibilities.
Why should the IDB be blamed publicly so long after the agreement had been signed because the minister himself does not seem to have understood what community and communication measures are needed to improve citizens’ security?
