It should be said at the outset that the private sector’s recent publicly expressed concern that crime, including violent crime, once again appears to be lurching out of control and its demand that there be a concerted official response to push back the current crime wave is entirely appropriate. The private sector, like the various other sectors of the society is likely to be particularly affected by a proliferation of crime in various ways. First, there is the general climate of fear and apprehension that inevitably attends a crime wave and the fear of criminal attacks on business premises and homes of business persons as well as attacks that target individuals doing business whether it be at banks, stores or other places of business.
The recent report of a couple being followed from a commercial bank in the city then robbed at gunpoint whilst making purchases in Bourda Market points to both the absurd bravado of the bandits and the extent of the vulnerability of potential victims. The Private Sector Commission (PSC) has a point. It is foolhardy to think that we can assume a business-as-usual posture in an environment of general worry. Like the rest of us, too, the private sector has a right to look to the state institutions responsible for keeping us safe to respond to the current crime wave in a manner that generates a greater measure of public confidence than appears to exist at this time.
What is also worth mentioning at this juncture is that the pattern and persistence of gun-related urban crimes, perpetrated with what frequently, is a mind-boggling bravado, reflect the criminals’ assessment of the state of readiness of the Guyana Police Force (GPF). Not that we ourselves question either the readiness or the will of the GPF to do its job though it has to be said that the criminals do not appear ready to take our word for it.
The PSC, over the years, has been inclined to make the kinds of sudden public interventions like it has done in this case, at that juncture when things get out of hand. Its call for action, on this occasion, does not appear to be appended to any longer-term commitment to sitting down with government – as was the original plan just after the new administration entered office – to engage constructively and on a sustained basis on some of the very issues that have now arisen.
Leaving the current issue aside, it has to be said that there has been a worrisome dichotomy between what has been very much an official focus on foreign and private investment and the role of entrepreneurship, on the one hand and the level of public/private sector discourse, on the other. Whether either side likes it or not skeptics are likely to challenge their sincerity to work together as long as no positive signals are forthcoming about a preparedness to engage.
We cannot say that we are particularly encouraged at this time.
To return to the issue of private sector concerns over crime, this newspaper subscribes to the view that crime is a multi-stakeholder issue and it would be more than worthwhile for an agreed anti-crime strategy to emerge from a collaborative approach that takes account of the views and recommendations of the private sector and other non-security stakeholders as well as the GPF. What will not cut it is an intervention which, while being altogether merited, does not appear to be tied to any longer-term strategy designed to kick start a longer, more structured public/private sector relationship.
