The US travel advisory for Guyana, which was issued at the end of last month, was given extensive coverage in the media for reasons which are not too far to seek. As was the case last year, this country was listed at Level 2, whereby American citizens were advised to exercise increased caution when visiting. “Violent crime, such as armed robbery and murder, is common,” it ran, going on to state that the police here lacked the resources to mount an effective response to serious criminal incidents.
The advisory said that citizens should be “extra vigilant” when engaged in such exercises as walking and driving at night, as well as visiting banks and ATMs. It also issued a caution about the public display of signs of wealth, such as wearing expensive watches or jewellery.
As we had reported at the beginning of this month, Director in the Presidential Secretariat Joseph Harmon, gave a contrary account of the security situation here, insisting that the country was safe, and warning that the negative description could impact on travel and investments. He sought to give the assurance that the police were equipped to handle the issues raised in the advisory. “Guyana is a safe place,” he told the media with an air of conviction. “It’s a safe place to live, it is a safe place to work, it’s a safe place to invest.”
It is unlikely that anyone was surprised by Mr Harmon’s remarks given that officialdom is notoriously resistant to acknowledging unpleasant realities. However, some people might have been a bit nonplussed by the fact that the Director appeared to be operating with the unspoken assumption that Guyana’s problem was one of image, rather than of crime per se. As far as the average person is concerned, they can relate to everything listed in the advisory, and his statements denying the actual state of things do not make Guyana a safe place.
Mr Harmon’s flirtation with fantasy was not the last word from the authorities on the subject.
The following week, the citizenry was the beneficiary of the thoughts of Police Commissioner Leslie James on the advisory. He was unwavering in his contention that there had not been an upsurge in crime, despite a few “sensational” crimes which had been committed recently, although he did say that like the citizens, the Police Force too was concerned about the occurrence of those crimes.
Speaking at a media briefing in Eve Leary, Mr James said that at the present time, the Police Force had recorded a 2.7 per cent decrease in serious crimes, compared with the same period last year. This figure was computed from the record of reported crimes. And herein lies the first problem. Even if it is the case that there has been a small decrease in serious crime, it is not substantial enough to affect the safety of citizens in any dramatic way.
While the Commissioner made no mention of the statistics in relation to it, what is termed petty crime is rampant throughout the society, and where that is concerned, victims often do not even bother to call the police. The reason is that officers sometimes do not respond, and if they do, the matter is frequently not pursued.
As we had said in our report on Mr Harmon’s press conference, in Georgetown especially, there is a great deal of petty crime involving the theft of cell phones and personal effects, which for the most part goes unsolved. We highlighted the bus parks in the downtown area as being one of the centres for such thefts, and adverted to the lack of police security on the streets during the Guyana Carnival, when a number of people, both local and foreign, were robbed. Tourists are especial targets for this variety of crime, something which Mr James did not seek to address.
If many of these kinds of crime are not reported, then they will not be included in the official statistics, which will allow the Police Commissioner to maintain that there has been “no upsurge in crime.”
The point was underlined when Mr James told the media that after he had learnt of the advisory, he had contacted an official at the US embassy. During that exchange, he said, it emerged that crimes which had not been reported to the police had been reported to the embassy. While he had not been at all cautious about how he had phrased his preliminary “no upsurge” statements, rather contradictorily he then did admit that statistical accuracy was dependent on all crimes being reported: “…I did say, very, very clearly, that all matters of crime, all crimes ought to be reported and it is only then we can have a proper representation of the truthful situation… we can only report on what is reported to us.”
As we related in our story on the press conference, the Commissioner immediately thereafter reverted to what he had said earlier, namely, assuring visitors and local people that there had been no increase in crime. For the public, this must have been somewhat confusing, leaving them with the impression that Mr James had no better idea than they had what the accurate figure for the crime rate was.
While one presumes that what the Commissioner described as “sensational” crimes are, in nearly all cases reported to the police, so that were figures for that ‘category’ to be issued they would be accurate, as things stand, they are normally subsumed under what the police classify as ‘serious’ crime. Exactly what is encompassed within that group is not always listed, so it may well be the case, therefore, that an unknown number of those crimes remain unreported. The situation with regard to petty crime has already been noted.
A failure to report crimes to the police is mostly a reflection of a lack of trust in the Force. While the GPF has earned kudos for some of its recent exploits, most notably in Lodge and Black Bush Polder, its performance would have to be consistent over an extended timeframe, and the public would have to be persuaded that they and any visitors who may come, are really safer than they used to be, before attitudes would change. If they do not have that perception, then it doesn’t matter what the police claim the crime rates are, they will not be believed. In the meantime, the Commissioner’s office might consider adding a more explicit caveat to their statements in relation to crime statistics, which as noted earlier, currently they do say are based on reported crimes.
Another factor contributing to a lack of trust in the police emerged during the press conference, when Mr James said he had been informed that there had been an improvement in the police response to reports of crime. Here again, public perception is everything, since his statements are not fully in accord with what citizens think. There certainly are still reports of 911 calls going unanswered when bandits attack, or if they are answered, officers taking an unconscionable time to arrive.
The really surprising statement came, however, when the Commissioner advised citizens who had met with what he described as a “lacklustre” response from the police after taking the 911 route for assistance, that there were other channels within the Force which could be utilised for making reports. Of course there are in theory, but if bandits are breaking into someone’s house, they will have a very small window of opportunity to summon help, and that window will only allow for recourse to 911. No one will have time, or perhaps even the means, to go rummaging through the telephone book to look for some other number.
The problems with 911 go back decades, and citizens cannot comprehend why it still is not completely reliable. Everyone would feel safer if that particular emergency avenue could be depended upon.
That we need a “truthful situation” with regard to information on crime, as the Commissioner represented it, is not to be gainsaid. One needs to know what is really happening before successful strategies can be devised to confront it. Making Guyana safe for locals and visitors depends in the first instance on being clear-eyed, and for Mr Harmon, especially, to emerge from his day-dream.
