The murder rate is down, and for that we should truly rejoice and be glad. In 2017 the parish of St James was the most murderous place on Earth with a rate of nearly 200 murders per 100,000 population. Since the imposition of the state of public emergency (SOE) the rate has fallen drastically and, according to Police Commissioner Major General Antony Anderson, since the declaration of the SOE in St James “about 146 fewer people have been killed”. Police data show that between January 1 and August 11, 2017, 188 murders were committed in St James, compared to 60 for the corresponding period in 2018 — a decrease of about 68 per cent. Nationally, there has been a 17 per cent reduction in major crimes, according to statistics released by the Jamaica Constabulary Force.

There are now three SOEs in the country — one in sections of Corporate Area, one in St Catherine, and the one in St James. But are SOEs the Government’s long-vaunted and long-promised crime (management) plan?

The country is entitled to expect that the Government has a clear sense of what it is doing and that it plans its interventions (strategies and activities) in targeted and coordinated ways to get the results it desires. But one cannot help concluding that the Government has happened upon SOEs as a tool to fight crime, and is now using what was designed socially and legally as a short-term, shock treatment intervention as a long-term measure.

And, based on the comments of Police Commissioner General Anderson, there appears to be a plan to make SOEs a long-term measure (which technically it has become for St James). In a report carried in the Jamaica Observer on September 26, 2018, the police commissioner was quoted as saying:

“Perhaps we have to do things a little differently, try and see how we can address the problem… the size force that you would need to deal with these levels of violence through normal policing processes are not feasible, so we have to have a method that reduces the input.”

The commissioner’s comments not only hint at a long-term strategy but a “try and hope for the best” philosophy. Three ideas in the quoted comments lend to this try and hope philosophy: ‘perhaps’, ‘try and see’ and ‘normal policing processes are not feasible’.

But did not the prime minister declare with absolute confidence that “there is a lot that (his party) can do about crime”? If so, beyond SOEs, what else?

It is to be recalled that former Police Commissioner Carl Williams was pressured by former national security minister, Robert Montague, to produce a crime plan, and after him Commissioner George Quallo. In the midst of the pressure being placed on Quallo the Ministry of National Security released a National Security Strategy and the minister and members of the Cabinet later described it as a plan. But a plan contains objectives/expected outcomes, strategies, activities, resources, and people responsible to drive activities. That document was anything but a plan. In response to demands for a crime plan the prime minister later said he cannot release the crime plan as it would tip off criminals.

So, after over two years in government, and having not developed a crime plan, we are seeing reductions in murders and other major crimes. But we should, as Justice Minister Delroy Chuck warned, knock wood: We dare not beat our chests, for what we have is not the result of carefully designed, sustainable, long-term strategies; what we have is the luck of a draw and a measure which we are not sure will work over the long term being used over the long term.

The country, in my opinion, risks becoming a police state, where it becomes the norm for rights to be suspended and people are not free to move about and conduct business at will, and their constitutional rights are being infringed. It is not that citizens are not willing to give up rights temporarily, but if several continuous SOEs are what the Government had in mind when it said “there is a lot that could be done about crime”, it should have said “we will be reducing murders by declaring states of emergency across Jamaica”. But, frankly, I do not think the Government had SOEs in mind, and quite honestly and sadly, I do not think the Government had any specific idea in mind. It was hopeful that ideas would be found.

Botched implementation of roadworks

The same ‘hit or miss’ and ‘try and hope for the best’ approach that the Government apparently took to the management of crime was taken to the implementation of the major infrastructure works in Kingston. Depending on who is speaking, the congestion and waste of productive time that have resulted from these multiple projects could be the fault of the police, the National Works Agency, the People’s National Party, the China EXIM Bank, or unruly and ungrateful motorists. But Karl Samuda insists that the prime minister knew that the congestion and half-day delays would occur.

But, factually, as can be seen by the stumbling into the Chesterfield bypass, the Government had no plans in place for the dislocation that would result from the closure of Three Miles. The Government reacted to the crisis, and started by blaming everyone but itself. Then apparently someone came to its rescue and suggested that a bypass to Three Miles be created. But if the Government had been engaged in serious planning then the bypass would have been built and opened before the closure of Three Miles. That could not be hard to figure out. I know we all make mistakes, but mercy, not of this kind, and if this happens someone must be held accountable. Not that anybody should go to jail or be pushed out in disgrace, but how do we maintain standards if the most colossal errors carry no consequences?

Other areas of guesswork

It is not only in relation to crime and the implementation of the major infrastructure projects that the Government appears to be guessing and trying a t’ing. This is also happening in the area of economic growth. Did not the Government promise “5 in 4”? We are 2.5 years into the four and it would take a miracle of non-human proportions for that promise to be fulfilled. And therein lies the rub: “5 in 4” was a promise not a plan. For, had there been a plan. a detailed roadmap on how it would be achieved would have been presented. Let us be clear, “5 in 4” was not a plan of five per cent growth in the fourth year of the Administration, or accumulative five per cent growth over four years. What the Economic Growth Council promised was five per cent growth each year over four years.

In an interview with the Observer’s Caribbean Business Report, carried on April 29, 2016, chairman of the Economic Growth Council Michael Lee-Chin said:

“We are striving to achieve five per cent annual GDP growth. At the end of four years we should be hitting a stride of five per cent GDP growth…It is not accumulative, it’s annual.”

With this kind of clear promise one would expect that there would be a plan, and that the anaemic 0.9 per cent growth for 2017/18 and the 1.8 per cent growth for the last fiscal quarter would not be met with applause from Lee-Chin; rather, what he would have done would be to say whether the outturn was at or below expectations; the factors which accounted for the results; and the plans for catching up — which would mean an accumulative 15 per cent growth at the end of year three. Mindful that this would be impossible, some realistic, redefined targets should be offered. Government must stop the guessing game. We were promised 250,000 jobs; 50,000 per year. After two and a half years we have about 50,000.

Some suggestions

There needs to be legislation which mandates the Government to present proper plans which benefit from stakeholder inputs and expert analysis. No minister of government, and no politician on the hustings, should be free to make grand announcements concerning wishes and ideas that have not been tested, and call them plans.

The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) should be repurposed to become an agency which has responsibility for testing the suitability, fitness-for-purpose, affordability, implementability, relevance, and potential efficacy of all Government’s plans, and be required, as a matter of law, to make public (on its website) its findings and recommendations on all plans.

Thus, when the Economic Growth Council announced “5 in 4”, it should be after it had submitted a comprehensive plan to PIOJ and awaited the PIOJ’s assessment showing that, based on the planned strategies and financing of various activities, a five per cent annual growth was attainable. The same would apply to the infamous increase of the tax-free threshold to $1.5 million. The law should have been such that PIOJ would do an assessment of the impact, affordability, and the number of people who would benefit. Thus, when the statement was made on the campaign trail that over 400,000 people would benefit, that claim should be subject to a ‘lie-detector’ test. As it turned out only 78,000 benefited.

The PIOJ should also have data on the number of vehicles that enter Kingston on a daily basis and use the major thoroughfares. The entity would also have data on the volume of economic activity which takes place in certain areas of the business districts. The entity should thus be able to assess the impact the roadworks would have on movement of traffic, economic activity, and productivity.

As I grow older I am more and more aware of the need to be mindful of the flaws and frailties of human nature and the complexities of leading and managing large organisations and processes. I thus feel the need to be tolerant of human failings. I believe, however, that there are some areas in which we can do better.

Dr Canute Thompson is head of the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning, lecturer in the School of Education, and co-founder and chief consultant for the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative, at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is also author of four books and several articles on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.