Dear Editor,
Dr Prem Misir’s response to the Sunday Stabroek’s editorial of April 19, 2009 captioned ‘State of anarchy?’ was captioned ‘Sunday Stabroek editorial was full of “flimsy elements and misconceptions”’ (SN 21.4.09). The Stabroek editorial stated, “In the meantime the rest of the community wonders whether we have entered on a new era, whereby anybody going to work and doing their job can be targeted by someone with an imagined grouse or for enigmatic reasons which cannot even be guessed at by onlookers. If so, then we don’t have a society any longer; we have a state of anarchy.”
Dr Misir immediately preyed on the word ‘anarchy’ and asserted that ‘chaos’ should be substituted by Stabroek News for ‘anarchy.’ Dr Misir then differentiated ‘anarchy’ from ‘chaos.’ Dr Misir stated, “And so, it is not authority that is vital to sustain order, but, perhaps, the institutionalization of moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system that will bring the crime rate within the zone of acceptance.” Dr Misir’s frenzied fixation over the use of the word ‘anarchy’ arises from the fact that one meaning of ‘anarchy’ indicates an absence of governmental authority. Dr Misir explains that state authority is not vital for sustaining order. He then speculates that perhaps “the institutionalization of moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system” is responsible for sustaining order. Dr Misir does not know what is indisputably vital for sustaining order but knows indisputably that the governmental authority is not responsible for sustaining order. Thus, his primary concern is about Sunday Stabroek’s use of the word ‘anarchy’ and its negative ascription against the government.
Dr Misir fails to understand that fighting crime especially heinous crimes against the person is a critical part of sustaining ‘order.’ If governmental authority is not ‘vital’ to fighting crime then government should simply stop fighting crime or prosecuting criminals. In fact, the government should resign by virtue of its avowed impotence in sustaining order. If moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system of the public at large is responsible for sustaining order then the public should fight crime itself and the government should not intervene. Dr Misir should know from living in Guyana that chaos can emanate from lack of action by authority. He should correctly state that crime is a problem in most parts of the world and is particularly so in countries such as Guyana where there are poor efforts to stop it.
I am still trying to understand how does one institutionalize moral belief and credibility in the criminal justice system in Guyana. Dr Misir should educate the public on this particular speculative statement. The Guyana criminal justice system is largely seen as corrupt, inefficient and incompetent by the wider Guyanese public. Assuming that this nebulous concept of institutionalization is workable, the most powerful institution with the resources to possibly accomplish such a task is the government. How then is a government that is largely seen as morally bankrupt and corrupt going to get the nation to support some bizarre concept of institutionalized moral belief and credibility in the criminal justice system?
Moral belief and credibility in the criminal justice system cannot “bring the crime rate within the zone of acceptance.” The superior performance, results and efficiency of the criminal justice system will accomplish that. Improved economic conditions certainly can. Governments cannot simply will people to accept bad criminal justice systems by institutionalizing moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system. Indeed, individuals commit crimes but if the authority cannot catch, fails to prosecute or cannot prevent such crimes, why again is the authority in charge of the state and its citizens? Unless Dr Misir is suggesting that the criminal justice system in Guyana is not a governmental institution, government is responsible for the criminal justice system and for any “moral belief and moral credibility” that attaches to it. Any widespread angst over the criminal justice system is a direct reflection of its masters and how it is managed and performs.
Dr Misir accepts here that the crime rate in Guyana is outside of the ‘zone of acceptance’ but wishes to blame this condition entirely on the people of Guyana.
When criminals cannot be caught and successfully prosecuted, and crimes prevented, there is justifiable reason for linking chaos to anarchy. When criminals traverse this land with bold freedom to commit whatever crime they feel inclined to commit, there is a case for anarchy. Van Beek was overseeing the judicial management of a very public company that lost billions of taxpayers’ money in perilous economic times in a country where crime, lawlessness, executions, unsolved slayings and vendettas run amok. Van Beek was not given any protection by the ‘authority.’ No public figures acting in a similar capacity in any of the devastated companies in developed nations have suffered the same fate. To blame the alarming permutations of crime entirely on the public and to attempt to absolve the government from any accountability for the rise of crime in Guyana is nefarious on the part of Dr Misir.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
