Peter Espeut | Contempt for the people

“People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people”. - Alan Moore, in V for Vendetta (1989).

For democracy to work well, governments should be afraid of the electorate. The people put them in power to work for the common good, and politicians should be on their ‘Ps and Qs’, in fear that – should they be shown to be incompetent, or self-serving, or be caught with their hands in the cookie jar – they will be voted out.

Having said that, this only works when the electorate has a high sense of social and personal ethics, and is possessed of an active voice. When the electorate vote for a government containing members – worse leaders – under a moral cloud, then the message sent is that there is a high tolerance for corruption. In that scenario, the elected politicians will usually deliver more of the same, thumbing their noses at the anti-corruption lobby. If you are going to be re-elected no matter how corrupt you are shown to be, then what is the incentive to be otherwise?

Such governments have no fear of the people.

Such governments, in fact, have contempt for the people.

And the people get the government they deserve.

Elements in civil society have been complaining about the sky-rocketing number of police killings of poor black men, some in questionable circumstances, and most by special squads on “intelligence-driven” operations. The agency created to investigate police killings has been consistently calling on the police high command to equip the special squads with body-worn cameras (BWCs) so that the police version of events can be verified, and give the police force a good name.

STORY WORN THIN

For much more than a year, the police high command have publicly stated that they are procuring hundreds of BWCs to do exactly that, and that they should arrive in weeks. The Prime Minister has given his undertaking. Weeks have turned into months, and more months, and many more months, and still no BWCs. That story has worn thin, and can no longer be used.

Then they told us that they did not have the hardware to store and analyse so many hundreds of hours of video footage, and that they are working on procuring it. (In the meantime, many hundreds – maybe thousands of cameras under the Jamaica Eye Programme are recording and storing and retrieving millions of hours of footage 24/7). Many months ago they admitted that they now have the necessary hardware, but still no BWCs – not even one – assigned to special squads, and the body count mounts every week. They have run out of excuses.

The latest is that the National Security Minister (is he Minister of War or Minister of Peace?) has publicly called the idea that police special squads wear BWCs “a crazy idea”, ridiculing both the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Police.

“This thing that you must wear a camera when you going to look for a man who has a M16 that’s firing 60 rounds per second is a crazy idea”.

In a society where politicians are held accountable by the people, either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Security would have to resign. Somebody is not telling the truth. Politicians are not afraid to lie to the public, for they know there will be no negative consequences.

CONTRADICTS

Even if what the Minister says is true – and existing international practice contradicts him – how many M16s have been recovered from the bodies of the poor black men killed by the police? And what about the several unarmed men – some of unsound mind – killed by these brave policemen? Too dangerous for body-worn cameras! Does the Minister take us for fools?

Eyewitnesses often dispute the police claim of a shootout. Who would be proved the liar if the police had BWCs? The refusal of the police high command and the responsible ministry to deploy BWCs – we now have to call it a refusal – is Trumpish behaviour, which shows contempt for the Jamaican people, and a lack of value for the lives of poor black men. This behaviour reinforces in many people’s minds that the police are operating death squads, and that the government has blood on their hands.

But that does not matter, because the politicians are not afraid of the people; the people are afraid of the government security forces who are supposed to serve and protect.

This government has a terrible reputation for corruption in procurement and in the awarding of contracts to themselves, their families and cronies. As things stand, secrecy surrounds the award of government contracts, which used to be regularly published. Only the government and their friends are satisfied with the current on-going anti-corruption legislation.

Let me take that back: in fact the Prime Minister has taken court action to overturn aspects of the current anti-corruption legislation, so in future there may be even fewer safeguards.

But post-Hurricane Melissa, red flags are going up, and horns and whistles are blowing, that the anti-corruption safeguards required to provide the necessary oversight around the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority (NaRRA) are lacking. If the government were afraid of the people, they would be falling over themselves to give even the appearance of propriety.

But no, the government is using their majority in parliament to pass legislation to put the spending of billions of dollars in the hands of just a few people. Are any of them under investigation?

The government is clearly not afraid of increased corruption-perception by the people. In fact, the arrogance and bold-face approach of the government shows contempt for the people.

And the people are afraid of the opportunities for corruption that are being created by the NaRRA legislation.

Maybe the people need to see what can be done to make the government afraid of them. We need for our democracy to work well.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist.