Our anxious, frightened population hopes the PNM-UNC crime talks meet with eventual success - significantly reducing murders, home invasions, gangs, illegal guns and drugs, even white-collar corruption, bringing praise to both parties.
If not, who should be blamed - PNM Government, UNC Opposition, society? Leadership, measured implementation with benchmarks are therefore crucial.
These joint talks should have been held before tomorrow's budget since it is expected some of the proposals may require special funding.
Firstly, the PNM Government should say why and where it found difficulty in controlling and reducing crime. And this should be accompanied with a reliable database. Such information, as a start, will lead to an intelligent, evidence-based discussion and proposals from all sides - civic and political. After all, this is a democratic society where political credibility and integrity matter.
All concerned should know where precisely the institutional, legislative, administrative and operational gaps and deficiencies are. This PNM-UNC exercise cannot be approached as just an opinion-driven talk-shop.
Given our crime record, the population may well ask where the emphasis will be placed: on crime prevention, law enforcement, institutional reform, political and constitutional reform, or all of the above?
The words ' holistic approach' come to mind. There is value in categorising the recommendations into those that require simple administrative action, simple majority vote and special majority vote.
Will white-collar crime be on the agenda too?
What about political realities? For example, briefly, the political party that wins the general elections is constitutionally required on oath to deal with the country's problems, defend its performance and be held accountable - in this case, on crime. The government is required to use public funds and state institutions to do the job.
Our Westminster system also includes an official opposition not only to scrutinise and hold government accountable, but also to be prepared to have the government voted out and take its place. Opposition Leader Ms. Kamla Persad-Bissessar has recently declared that her UNC party is already on 'election footing' towards the next general election. With joint government-opposition proposals, how will the Government and especially the Opposition hereafter treat with crime from the political platform?
At the same time, another 'reality' question arises: from the joint crime discussions and, hopefully, agreed recommendations, who stands to gain more? The Government, the Opposition, both, or the country?
The implied political obligation for both government and opposition stems partly from the Constitution: 'Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of TT.'(Section 53) Who comprises Parliament?
There are some 'bite-the-bullet" issues. Given the serious criticisms by the PM of Gary Griffith, how helpful or unhelpful will Griffith's presence on the UNC's crime talks' team be? Given, too, the st
