Will the nation’s security improve?

By Stephen C Walwyn

Like it or not, the political leadership is key. We have placed our leaders in power to deal with our security issues, to make decisions about the proportion of our resources that should be devoted to improved security and to effectively manage this very challenging sector. The security of the nation as an urgent responsibility of the government is a constitutional mandate, as we have been reminded of late by the Minister of National Security.

So why then when one dares to criticize the leadership or ask the tough questions, that individual is seen as too political, has a political agenda or acting in service of furthering another’s political aims. Do we still have a democracy or are we, as I have long contended, a democracy on constitutional paper but in practice more like a quasi-dictatorship with a nice face on it? I am always amused when someone walks up to me and tells me that my writings are too “political”.  If what they mean is, that in an extremely polarized country that is obsessed with politics, my statements are a bit blunt, lack political correctness and may not be effective as a result, then I find that to be useful criticism indeed. What I have concluded however that they are really meaning is that I am not advancing their party’s political agenda or interests. If speaking out against poorly constructed policies and inadequate responses to very serious problems in our Country makes me political, then I must be very political indeed. I don’t however have a political agenda, nor does my voice represent any party’s political interest per se. It is the voice of the nation, the voice of hearts that long for peace and security.

Having made bold statements challenging the status quo and the government’s mindset as it relates to the management of our security, and being an analyst, the question is begged as to why would I not expect the suggestions made in the two previous articles, to be taken on board.  For that matter, not just my suggestions but a number of good suggestions from others over the past few years that our nation’s security apparatus has been on the radar of the world. Why have those ideas been dismissed with the hubris of Wall Street executives and the guardedness of a mother hen with fresh hatches?

First, we should be honest and appreciate that politicians and political cultures in some parts of the world ALWAYS reject ideas NOT coming from themselves or their camp as they are usually perceived as threats to their own POLITICAL security. This Administration, while it is credited with doing a number of very good things during the past fifteen years, knows full well that security is a vulnerable area politically and believes that it has failed the Nation. Three different ministers of national security in three years, including the Prime Minister, is itself a telling glimpse into the insecure mind of the Government when it comes to security and crime.  Additionally, there are at least 3 other reasons for why suggestions that fall outside the Labour Administration’s political reach are not expected to be aired in meetings of national security and given due consideration. To my mind, those reasons are: 1. It is far more expedient to use our Treasury for anything that will bring immediate political benefit such as low income housing and offering jobs here and there; 2. it is much easier to dismiss and criticize suggestions from someone outside of your power milieu if you are a powerful government than to acknowledge the merit of what they say; and 3. given the government’s obvious contempt for the media, it is not likely to want to be seen as drinking from its well and using ideas expressed through its medium.

The Nation was stunned this past week by a rare but badly needed national security press conference, as it turned into a face-off between the Minister of National Security and members of the media.  From an otherwise affable, good natured and very mature politician came a highly defensive response to what most objective minded persons would have considered a rather benign question.  Mr. Bert David of Winn FM apparently bowled the first ball and asked why the Commissioner of Police was absent from the Press Conference when in fact there were other members of the top brass present. The press was excoriated by the Minister, undressed and treated more like mischievous juveniles in the old world of St. Kitts and Nevis than persons with the right to ask questions of their choosing in a modern world in which the press has some stake in a democracy. 

One of the best barometers of the maturity level of a nation or a people and of its psychological health is a government’s treatment of the media. Judging from this press conference, we are not doing very well at all. Defensiveness, arrogance, a combative spirit and even high-handed insults displayed are earmarks of a desperate and frustrated posture. It really says that we don’t have the answer to escalating crime and violence; it also says that the government is praying and hoping that this nightmare will just end at some point, magically. It is a far cry from transparency, accountability and being true servants of the people. 

Mr. Minister of National Security, Mr. Prime Minister, other ministers in the Federal Cabinet, the nation is watching you very closely. The nation is watching the way you have handled security matters. The nation is watching your treatment of the media, since it may just suggest that the condescending and arrogant way in which you see them may just be the same way you see the rest of us - as imbeciles who pose stupid questions and dare to “second-guess” you, when we simply just want to know why it is taking you so long to figure out what the rest of us have long noticed: the nation’s security has to be top priority, not just in word, but also in deed.