By Corneilus George
Trinidad and Tobago’s crime crisis is too grave to be treated as another opportunity for predictable political warfare. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has announced that the Government intends to establish 30 joint police–army security posts across the country within four months. The initiative is intended to increase the presence of the protective services in vulnerable communities and forms part of the Government’s wider anti-crime strategy during the current state of emergency. It may succeed, it may require substantial modification, or it may eventually fail, but it deserves a fair opportunity to demonstrate results.
The People’s National Movement has raised questions about the proposal. Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles has asked how the posts will be financed, staffed and equipped, and has argued that they cannot substitute for a comprehensive crime plan. These are legitimate questions, not objections that should automatically be dismissed as obstruction. Parliament and the public should know where the posts will be located, how communities will be selected, what each post will cost and how responsibilities will be divided between police officers and soldiers. According to the Government’s timetable, however, the posts are to be established over the next four months, so the country should judge the programme against clearly stated objectives rather than condemn it before implementation begins.
The PNM must recognise the difference between scrutinising a policy and attempting to destroy it politically. Responsible opposition requires questions, proposed amendments and vigilant oversight. Opposing every government initiative merely because it comes from the other side contributes nothing to public safety. If the PNM believes the posts are poorly designed, it should recommend better locations, operational arrangements and accountability mechanisms. If it possesses intelligence about crime patterns in constituencies it represents, it should share that knowledge through the appropriate national-security channels. The objective must be to improve the programme, not to secure political satisfaction from its failure.
This is especially important because violent crime is not confined to supporters of one party. Bullets do not request party cards before destroying families. Business owners facing extortion, parents afraid for their children, commuters anxious about travelling after dark and residents trapped between rival gangs are not interested in which party receives credit; they want protection. Communities traditionally associated with the PNM are no less entitled to benefit from a government initiative, just as UNC constituencies should never be neglected by a PNM administration.
The Government, for its part, must not interpret requests for details as hostility. Giving the initiative a chance does not mean granting the Government a blank cheque. Joint posts must operate under a published legal and administrative framework. Soldiers are trained primarily for defence, while police officers possess the authority and specialised training required for civilian law enforcement. The police must therefore retain responsibility for investigations, arrests and the collection of evidence. Military personnel should provide carefully defined support under a clear chain of command. Complaints must be independently investigated, and the constitutional rights of residents must remain protected.
The Government should also state how success will be measured. A row of containers or buildings accompanied by armed personnel may create visibility without producing sustainable security. The relevant tests should include whether shootings decline in the areas served, whether emergency response times improve, whether firearms and wanted suspects are lawfully recovered, whether residents provide more information and whether businesses and families feel safer. Results should be published periodically without disclosing operational intelligence. If a post produces no measurable benefit, it should be relocated or redesigned.
Nor should these posts become permanent substitutes for functioning police stations, proper investigations and community policing. A fixed security presence may deter open criminal activity, but gangs can move into neighbouring districts or become less visible. The programme must therefore be connected to intelligence gathering, border protection, firearms interdiction, financial investigation and the prosecution of gang leaders and their financiers. It must also be supported by social interventions for young people vulnerable to recruitment. Security posts can help suppress immediate violence; they cannot repair broken schools, unemployment, family instability or communities abandoned by the State.
The previous PNM administration cannot reasonably claim that its approach brought the crime crisis under control. It introduced policies and deployed the protective services, but the results were plainly insufficient. That record should encourage humility rather than automatic rejection of a different approach. At the same time, the present Government should resist suggesting that visible activity is itself proof of success. Trying something is important, but effectiveness, legality and accountability are what ultimately matter.
Trinidad and Tobago needs an opposition that is firm without being destructive and a Government that is decisive without becoming arrogant. The PNM should allow the 30 joint posts to be implemented while demanding transparent financing, civilian oversight and measurable outcomes. After an agreed review period, Parliament should examine the evidence and decide what should be retained, corrected or discontinued.
Country must come before party, particularly when lives are at stake. If the initiative succeeds, the beneficiaries will not belong to the UNC; they will be citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. If it shows weaknesses, the PNM should help correct them. The fight against crime cannot continue as a contest in which one party’s failure is treated as the other party’s victory. When innocent people are dying, political victory built upon national failure is no victory at all.
