Prime Minister Andrew Holness, by intimating that the Church could be asked to moderate the Vale Royal talks he has promised for this month, suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that the private sector is being sidelined.

For the most part, since the commencement of talks aimed at finding consensus on fighting crime, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), supported by civil society, has operated as the go-between for the two major political parties.

In announcing that the Vale Royal deliberations will resume this month, the prime minister said: “I do intend to, once more, in early January… invite the leader of the Opposition under the established umbrella of the Vale Royal talks. Maybe the Church could… host us and see if we can broker some understanding.”

By leaving out any reference to the PSOJ and civil society the prime minister has left us to wonder how the resumed talks will be structured. Will it, for example, be a straight conference involving the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP), with the Church — such as it will be constituted — as moderator?

Mr Holness needs to clarify whether he has lost confidence in the PSOJ-moderated talks and, if so, what would be the basis of this loss of confidence. This search for consensus on crime-fighting is way too important to be left with such questions hanging.

In truth and in fact, the talks have struggled to achieve consensus, not that we can see that this was any failing on the part of the PSOJ. The two political parties have just not shown the will needed to push through what is admittedly a tough ask to a final workable agreement.

It is right to note that the Opposition has always indicated its willingness to work with the Government under the aegis of the Vale Royal talks. However, the often toxic relationship between the two parties — especially over the handling of the states of public emergency (SOEs) — has not always been conducive to meaningful negotiations.

Notably, Opposition Leader Mark Golding has outlined a sensible agenda for the new talks, which we hope the Government will take on board.

We have, in this space, an undying hope that the two parties — knowing that they both have little to show in curbing crime, especially murders — would agree that only a united approach could effectively galvanise the populace to fight this monster that has deprived this country of its promise.

Of course, we are keenly aware that both parties have, in the past, contributed to the crime situation by sheltering thugs and political toughs whom they used to corral votes at election time and maintain garrison communities as exclusive enclaves. Getting rid of them completely will come at a price.

Frankly, we are at the place where we can accept any moderator — be it the private sector or the Church — which can bring the parties to the table to hammer out a lasting pact that will loosen the grip of criminals on the throat of this country.

We acknowledge that the Church has the moral authority and some level of experience in keeping political peace in warring communities. Some church people know who are the bad men and even where they are holed up in communities, even if they are sworn to confidentiality.

Perhaps this can be brought to bear on the talks.