Are criminal gangs politically motivated? Is there one criminal gang or many? Do media houses coordinate their presentation of the news about crime? Many persons have asked these questions over the past three months.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds was one of the most senior administration officials to put forward his pet assumption to explain the motivation behind the Lusignan killings in January. Unhesitatingly, he told the media that it was “clearly a racial problem.” He was immediately contradicted by Presidential Adviser on Governance Gail Teixeira who took pains to point out that the issue of whether the killers were of one ethnic group or another was irrelevant. In any event, she admitted that the culprits had not been identified by ethnicity and, “We can’t tell that as we weren’t there.”
Her own hypothesis that the country was confronted by politically-motivated criminal gangs that were bent on terrorism is far-fetched. She spoke of “a specific criminal gang” that for the past six years had used the Buxton corridor on the East Coast, “supported by a network of satellite cells in various villages throughout the country, to carry out terrorism and murder to achieve political objectives.” But, does evidence of such a vast criminal conspiracy exist?
The view of Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee also was that the gangs that carried out recent robberies and killings were politically motivated. This, he felt, was explained by the fact that gangs were armed with AK-47 assault rifles, hired lookouts and informants, and paid persons to provide transportation. But, does the mere use of these resources make a gang political?
President Bharrat Jagdeo also had his say. He suggested that a significant part of the opinions expressed by certain television stations and by some media outlets “are very coordinated, with a central design to paint a particular picture of our country and they all have an objective.” Can the President prove that there really is a conspiracy of owners of media enterprises who coordinate their communications policies? It is difficult to see how these general assumptions of the President, Prime Minister, Minister and Presidential Adviser help to explain the nature of organised crime and violence in this country.
Mr Rohee was quick to compare the March 2007 raid at Lesbeholden in the Black Bush Polder to the murderous October 2006 raid at Mon Désir in the Canal Number Two Polder on the West Demerara. The police promptly pronounced that their fantastic ballistic tests on spent shells found at Lesbeholden proved that the “same guns” had been used at Mon Désir and had also been used in the mass murders of Minister of Agriculture Satyadeow Sawh and his relatives at La Bonne Intention in April 2006 and at Agricola in February 2006.
When the gang of five men accused of the Lesbeholden rampage were arrested and appeared before at the magistrates’ court, however, both Mr Rohee’s flimsy theory and the police hypotheses which tried to link a single gang with crimes at Mon Désir, La Bonne Intention, Agricola and Lesbeholden suddenly collapsed.
The homicidal behaviour of the gangs of Corentyne pirates has also undermined the administration’s theories about criminal violence. Now that Surinamese authorities have arrested the alleged Guyanese pirates, what ministerial theory can explain the composition of the gang and their motivation for the crimes which include the murders of several fishermen and attacks on fishing boats over a period of years? Are pirate gangs politically-motivated?
What can the administration say of the large gangs of criminals implicated in Guyana Revenue Authority busts of contraband beverages, Guyana Energy Agency busts of illegal fuel and Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit busts of cocaine traffickers? How does the administration explain the criminal organisation behind the construction of illegal airstrips at Wanatoba and Orealla on the Corentyne River? Which cartels control narcotics-trafficking and which gangs are responsible for the numerous drug-related executions? All of these forms of organised crime required a great deal of planning, organising, financing and recruiting of workers.
Officials see only what they want to see. But without empirical evidence and intelligent analysis, it is unwise and unhelpful for decision-makers to loudly give the impression that criminal gangs fit one convenient category or that their operations conform to a single racial or political theory.
If their public pronouncements are to have any credibility, officials have an obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid airing their pet theories which have no evidential foundation. After years of old talk, it is clear that their notions have not led to solutions of the crime problem.
At this time, the public is more interested in seeing the police arrest criminals of all hues, dismantle drug cartels and gangs of all types, reduce organised crime in any form and restore a satisfactory level of public safety to the whole country. Windy conspiracy theories achieve none of these.
