Crime talks collapse no surprise

To no one’s surprise, the proposed crime talks between the Government and the Opposition have collapsed ­before they even began.

Addressing the media on Monday, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley asserted that the United National Congress was never serious about finding solutions to crime. According to Dr Rowley, the Opposition has “a great day when the criminals carry out their outrages in this country because they see it as being of political value”. If this is so, it follows that the Government is, in fact, being harmed politically by the high crime rate, especially murders. This, in turn, means the Prime Minister does not consider such political backlash sufficiently serious to support the crime talks.

In explaining his refusal, Dr Rowley argued that the Opposition deals “with personalities, we deal with institutions”. Yet, in the same breath, he admitted that another reason for not taking part was the presence of former police commissioner Gary Griffith on the Opposition team.

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, on her part, could have tried to accommodate the Prime Minister by replacing Griffith. Had she done so, and had Dr Rowley continued to refuse, his recalcitrance would have been even less persuasive.

Using the same institutional argument, Dr Rowley continued to insist that his presence was not necessary at the talks. Yet Dr Rowley, more than most, must be well aware that, in our political culture, the political leader wields absolute authority. To not attend would therefore have sent the message that the crime talks were not a priority.

Citizens will now be confirmed in their cynicism that neither the Government nor the Opposition was ever serious about holding these talks, let alone coming up with viable solutions. Dr Rowley has insisted that the Opposition “will lay down no conditions for this Government”, which puts the core principle of politics—compromise—off the table.

That politicians will play politics is inevitable. However, good political leaders know how to gain political advantage while still serving the needs of the country. It appears, however, that Dr Rowley and Ms Persad-Bissessar are narrowly focused on keeping their positions, with citizens taking the hindmost.

The country’s politicians can ignore even life-and-death ­issues partly because too many people’s party allegiances are based solely on tribal loyalty. Poll data show that, no matter how much concern citizens express about murder or corruption or the economy, the base electoral support of the PNM and UNC never shifts significantly. Only in the marginals is election victory determined by floating voters, and this is where some hope lies.

When it comes to fighting crime, both the PNM and the UNC will stoutly declare their concern and commitment. Each will claim to have solutions but, in the end, each will push whatever plays to their core constituencies. To win the 2025 general election, however, both parties will have to convince the marginal voters that they can reduce crime. That will be when the real crime talks happen.

>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Trinidadexpress.com – https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/editorials/crime-talks-collapse-no-surprise/article_5a839d6a-88d3-11ee-b6d1-0fed10d72b22.html