I often state without apology that the gang culture which haunts us now is as a direct result of the civil war that took place between 1974 to 1980. I place the responsibility for this conflict squarely on the shoulders of both political parties that took part in it. None to me is more at fault than the other.

Based on the above, I think it is sensible to analyse or a fair question to ask if the situation that we now find ourselves in would be different had the war/election ended with another victor.

Before I start looking at the many possible outcomes, let me clear the air regarding what is the “situation” we now find ourselves in. I speak of the existence of ‘garrison seats’ that our political leaders, our press and our citizenry accept.

I speak of extortion practices we will never be able to reverse. I speak of gang numbers that nearly mirror our armed forces. Most importantly, I speak of a cultural acceptance and embracing of gang culture.

So if the PNP had won, what would Jamaica’s gang environment be like? Would we still have gangs? Would it be worse? Or better? Let’s take it one scenario at a time.

So assume the election was won by the PNP and the communist rhetoric continued. Well firstly, the civil war would not have ended. The violence would have gotten worse. As we leaned more towards a communist State the Americans would have invaded as they did in Grenada in 1983. They would end the gang culture if they used the MacArthur model as used in Japan in post-World War II. Our gang culture would likely have died out during the occupation and we would have less powerful gangs today. But they would still exist.

Let us assume another scenario, that Michael Manley would have changed his politics in 1980 as he did in 1989, and began reversing the steps towards communism. This would likely have ended the war. However, the gang culture would continue — as it has to this day — and we would be no better off. The seeds were already planted.

So we are brought to scenario three in which, after the PNP’s victory, the country would have become a communist State and the Americans would have backed off. As unlikely as this is, the effect would be reduced resistance and eventual acceptance. The gang culture would be destroyed, but at the loss of our freedom.

The harsh reality is that any scenario that allows for freedom will result in a continuation of the gang culture which we created, unless there is a massive effort at cultural change.

This is why I spoke to the occupation of Japan that did not just target the empire’s supporters, but attacked the fanatical embracing of brutality and blind loyalty to theeEmperor. It re-cultured the country using re-education of the young.

You see, you can police evil into submission, but you cannot logically do it and still remain a free society. Our justice system has its faults, but an accused man almost always gets a fair shake.

This does not work that well for victims but the chance of an innocent man being convicted is low. Not nil, but low.

This is why the zones of special operations (ZOSO) as an entity has such incredible potential to bring about change.

However, it cannot be short term as cultural change requires time, lots of it. Frankly, I think every garrison created by our leaders should be a ZOSO committed to reversing the culture of ‘gangsterism’ we birthed in the seventies.

Children must grow up seeing soldiers and police in charge of these ZOSO communities. Social systems should be in place to ensure the police are controlled, as is the defined message and process of cultural change.

Observing countries where crime is not an issue, there are one of two characteristics.

In China or Cuba crime and gangs are not an issue because the choice to be a gangster does not exist — the State will not allow it.

However, this control cannot exist in a totally free society. The reality of a free State is that most of the freedoms that protect us all are manipulated by the criminals among us. So the rights that restrict incarceration and police action in general are really only protecting the criminal. However, the existence of these rights protect everyone from future tyranny that could possibly take place.

Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth the innocent lives, but mostly I value the existence of these rights.

Norway and Holland also have managed to create societies in which gangsterism is not a major feature in their crime issues. This whilst maintaining a free society. They do this by using social systems rather than rifles. This is something that requires wealth, a lot of it.

But all four countries have one thing in common. They changed and controlled the culture that embraced gangs. The mechanisms to achieve this differed. One set used harsh State control. The other, State care. But at the end of it the result was the erosion of gang acceptance and adulation.

We are the opposite. Our songs, even our dances, embrace gang values. Have you seen the new “rifle walk”, or heard the lyrics for Gunman Shift? We love it!

We embrace it. Our law enforcement makes Tik Tok videos to it. Our leaders wallow in it every election.

We are like the Japanese in the 1940s, senselessly embracing values that diminish our humanity.

The outcome of the 1980 election did not determine the road we have walked. Nothing that the PNP could have done or would have done could have changed the outcome we now live in, other than if they had reverted to full totalitarianism, which the leaders of our region would never have allowed to happen at that stage of our history.

That is my answer to the question. Neither will the selection of a political party in the next general election determine the future of ‘gang Jamaica’.

It is only when the idea of gangs becomes as repulsive to the general society as the philosophy of indentured servitude or child pornography will change really occur.

I don’t see this happening in my lifetime.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com