Back in 1993 I had a conversation with a friend and politician who told me that “democracy cannot function in a police State”. We were debating the suggested repealing of the Suppression of Crime Act that, in his opinion, made Jamaica a police State.

Well, in a sense, he was correct. Indefinite detention without charge or trial and without recourse in law is a standard element of a police state.

The question I should have asked is: Can democracy function in a State or zone that is experiencing gang control? Or should it?

Let’s look at the logical process that democracy will take in a gang zone during the run-up to an election or even during the everyday running of a constituency seat.

Much of St Catherine has zones that have dominant criminal personalities commonly called “dons”. This is the same for east, west, and central Kingston; south and central St Andrew; and quite a few communities in Clarendon and St James.

So an election is announced. Is the candidate expected to refuse to engage in dialogue with the don or dons in that community? That would be ridiculous. It would be morally correct, but political suicide.

First, and most important, the don’s influence is significant. He has people who follow his directives by choice, and others who follow them due to fear.

Shunning him would be a prescription for losing the election. That is unless both candidates have an understanding to refuse to engage in any dialogue or conspiracy with him. That would take a lot of trust. I don’t really see that degree of gentlemanly behaviour being demonstrated by Jamaican political candidates.

Second, the very principle of our system is that the political process guarantees representation for all persons — good, bad, or homicidal. So we, in effect, likely will have a situation where good people who have never been involved in a single violent act in their lives are forced to be in communication or in conspiracies with criminals.

Let’s compare this with a police state where the Government can randomly arrest the Opposition as a way to impact the election.

This is Singapore 101. They have been arresting Opposition candidates for decades as a means of making them ineligible for nomination for an electoral seat.

However, the fact that a State has the power to engage in immoral electoral tactics doesn’t mean it will. The criminal will do as his nature dictates, that is to profit from any situation, irrespective of moral considerations.

So in the balance of things if you had a choice between a police State and a gang State, which would you prefer?

When I had the aforementioned discussion Jamaica already had gangs with massive influence in political blocks. This had been so, arguably, since the late 60s but definitely since 1974.

The removal of the Suppression of Crimes Act did not make Jamaica a State with significant gang influence. That existed before. The removal just prevented any possibility of the country becoming a police State or, as my friend believed, reverted it from being one. A real police State would remove the gang influence, but would it mean the end of our way of life?

I have travelled to countries all over the world that were police states when I visited. Some still are now. I would not want to live like they do, but my freedom and yours comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens’ lives, happiness, and safety.

They live under gang rule whilst we enjoy freedoms simply because we are not a police State.

Is this fair? Is a police State required? Is the very electoral process empowering street gangs and forcing politicians to find ways to ensure that the gangs benefit during the run-up to elections and beyond? Is there a logical solution?

There are a few and they all require major steps with major consequences.

Elections could be suspended and we could move to a coalition Government.

Gangs become far less powerful when you don’t have to even chat to them.

We could move towards an environment where gangsters are all jailed by the State. This, as I have discussed many times, would require constitutional changes and a massive investment in penal facility expansion.

We could pass legislation that dramatically increases our armed forces and move to a paramilitary occupation of our gang zones. This, though, would require conscription and would come with its own opportunity cost implications to young citizens.

The easiest road is to continue this loop where governments plan and execute programmes to destroy gangs, only to send some poor politicians into gang-influenced seats to communicate and negotiate with gangsters in numbers and in their own environment every four to five years. Easy! But at what cost?

Change that matters is never easy. When our schools were virtually nationalised in 1957 to allow entry by merit and not wealth it was difficult. It came at a massive cost and with social resistance.

Making university education free was not easy either. Neither was reversing it when it became necessary. History doesn’t remember or celebrate “easy”. History recognises governments that do what is “necessary”.

I can only sympathise with the dichotomy that governments and political candidates are facing. There are few, if any, in government who were the architects of this disaster.

Those who continue to offer their service as political representatives in gang zones have my sympathy and respect because I couldn’t do it.

That being said, I don’t want my grandchildren to face the same crisis my grandparents lived through.

To any side that wins in 2025, find a way to fix this. Find a way to “make history”. You will be righting the wrongs of men and women who are revered. Ironic, isn’t it?