Hodgepodge of crime plans

NO MATTER who enters office after April 28, crime will have to be reckoned with. For good reason, we have been told by successive leaders that it is the “number one priority.” It should be.

Yet, the 2025 general election campaign has, thus far, seen merely a hodgepodge of plans, with the UNC even producing what it describes as a “minifesto” on the issue – a document suggesting the party’s approach is to promulgate separate measures to enhance the overall toolbox. The PNM, too, presented the recently concluded state of emergency as a discrete intervention.

A carpenter who does not have the proper tools to get the job done will fail. However, no matter how many implements you give a carpenter, this is meaningless unless that carpenter has a clear idea of what must be sawed, assembled and built. Lacking from all sides is the sense of a bold, coherent vision beyond platitudes.

From a certain perspective, this is unsurprising. The crime issue has, for decades, been something of a political graveyard into which successive administrations have fallen.

Furthermore, modern elections have been changed profoundly by a culture of click bait and social media. The average attention span may well now be even less than the usual seven-day wonder. A rapidly changing global order also means the issues of yesterday are not the issues of today. It is hard for any one thing to rise above the noise.

Still, a review of what has so far been offered on the platforms yields to the conclusion that far more incisive and insightful plans are needed. Even the smaller third parties have failed to enrich the conversation.

The PNM’s proposal to change the process by which a top cop is appointed is meaningless without a constitutional majority. Does Stuart Young plan to reintroduce the prime ministerial veto, as proposed by the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform?

In an echo of history, Mr Young also proposes a new “elite” squad. But adding and shifting resources across new units does not address capacity. Nor does it cater to the enormous range of criminal offences that require special attention: from murder to white-collar crime.

The UNC wants to create a ministry of home affairs. But again, the same issues arise.

Meanwhile, Kamla Persad-Bissessar's proposal to give greater access to guns while enacting stand-your-ground laws simply deflects the burden away from the police onto the shoulders of private citizens, already besieged. A “minifesto” of measures begins to resemble no real measures at all.

Former police officials, such as Roger Alexander and Gary Griffith, are involved in the race.

But the ongoing discourse on crime needs to shift from the cult of personality towards meaningful policy. We await.