Why not make a specialist security minister?
Back in the mid-80s my first job was with General Lubricants. My boss was John Causwell. Other than my father, this man probably had more influence in forming my personality than any other.
My first meeting with him, however, was not that great. I was 18 years old with ‘O’ level, CXC, and ‘A level passes. Those days that was entry level to any office. I presented my results and told him, when asked, what I would like to earn.
He replied: “At this point I’m paying you to learn because really, you know nothing about anything related to my business.”
I replied: “I learnt at school and I have always worked in my father’s security business.”
He said: “What you can offer is relative to what you know and what you know of lubricants is limited to the quart you pour in your car.”
As a young man I did not understand. After 30 years of involvement with courthouses, police stations and law enforcement, I see his words clear as crystal.
So let us take this example and look at the security ministry.
I believe that former police or military commanders should be involved at minister levels in the Ministry of National Security. This should be no lower than junior minister.
This is not to say that I am criticising the performance of the ministers, who have served previously, many whom, if not all, are civilians.
In fact, I believe that Peter Phillips’ take down of the Montego Bay cocaine kings is our version of the defeat of Pablo Escobar and should have resulted in national honours.
I also think Dr Horace Chang’s use of limited states of emergency is ingenious and, if allowed, will bring the murder rate under 1,000 per annum eventually. But if expertise like Newton Amos is available in the governing party, why not use him? He was a commander who fought organised crime at all levels in his career and also was an administrator.
There is also Lucius Thomas. He was a great commander and commissioner and transitioned to politics. There is no one in either party who understands crime-fighting like him. Is there a plan to use him as any type of minister in the PNP Cabinet if they form the next Government?
I do not think that the post of minister of national security should be for members of Parliament. It is just too specialised and needs people who have expertise to determine national policies.
If you limit it to politicians, then you cut out the best people with the most needed experience.
A military commander or former commissioner should not have to be leaping and dancing on a political stage like a poppy show to get an opportunity to offer his services in a most necessary category.
Maybe it should be a post decided on by both parties, so political influence on security decisions would become unlikely.
I think that few people really understand Jamaican crime-fighting, especially the strategies required to fight gangs.
It is a lesson in specialisation that is segmented into so many parts.
I know gangs; that is my area. But I know far less about fraud and virtually nothing about praedial larceny because I never really participated in an effort to combat the theft of crops and farm animals.
So picture the person in charge knowing a great deal because he is well informed, but also has been an active and recent participant in the war against the gangs.
Now, compare him to the person who has just been well-informed, but whose experience lies in accounting or surveying. It is a no-contest.
Ok, I understand politics. These guys put out their lives to make their parties win and there are not enough ministerial spots to go around for those who earned it. Well, there are junior minister roles that the people with the experience can fill.
Maybe security and finance could be the ministries that are restricted to specialists. I do not know, but what I do know is that it has taken me 30 years to understand the workings of the Jamaican judicial system; and almost 20 to figure out gang -fighting strategies and I am still trying to understand penal practices and policies.
There is no way that I am going to understand the inner workings of agriculture in the next decade. So I am probably not the best choice for the minister of agriculture job.
Why is this thought process not being considered for the security ministry. It could only strengthen it. First though, it may be necessary to put country before party; specialists before loyal politicians; and, of course, an expectation that no decision will be made to benefit a party in power.
This needs to be the thrust of both parties. We are in too bad of a rut for too long of a chapter.
Is this the time, maybe, to consider not just politically-free security ministries, but politics-free ministries.
Maybe even a coalition government for maybe just one term. Then perhaps we could give Dr Chang the praise he deserves or even the recognition that Dr Phillips earned.
Or shall we just continue to work against each other for the benefit of politics, with the only true victor being the criminal and the only true victim “another lost generation”.
Feedback: jasonamckay@gmail.com