PLAN RESTORE BELIZE NOT A NATIONAL SOLUTION

Over the last two years the social fabric of the Belizean society has been severely challenged by the global financial and economic crisis that spawned from the industrialized nations and its lasting effects being felt in the developing world.  Fueled by dismal economic activity, crime and criminal activity have soured to unprecedented levels in Belize.  Businesses and communities no longer feel safe and security for property and life is of paramount concern to all.  The state has a constitutional obligation to provide for public goods and services, infrastructure and national security to its citizenry.  The various calls on the current Government to take exceptional measures to address the increased levels of crime in Belize have been sung for much too long.  Now at its pinnacle, the Government has unveiled its response dubbed Plan Restore Belize.

This write will critically examine Government’s response to crime by way of this recent proposal and the accompanying cabinet changes.  However, to meaningfully address the potential benefits of these changes it is imperative that there is some appreciation for examining the economic and social cost of crime in Belize.  It is by assessing what is the cost implication of crime that policy decisions can be made that provide for the optimal utilization of limited resources.  Developing countries like Belize are plagues with many challenges and limited resources, therefore policy decisions must be so informed that they create the greatest impact at all times.

Plan Restore Belize, is premised on re-establishing security through outreach rehabilitation and education and is accompanied with an institutional arrangement that leaves much to be desired.  The Crime Control and Criminal Justice Act, Chapter 102 of the laws of Belize allows for the establishment and functioning of a Crime Control Council.  This Council has representatives from the churches, cabinet ministers, non-governmental organization (NGO), business community, judiciary, bar association and one representative nominated by the leader of the opposition.  Among the many function of this Council is to “liaise with a broad spectrum of community-based and social-service organizations to develop a coordinated team-approach to reducing gang violence or the effects of substance abuse or other criminal activities”.  The law therefore currently provides for a coordinating function to be executed by this Council and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister for legislative reforms necessary in the pursuit of its objectives.  In the exercise of its functions the Council can establish committees of its own members and may co-opt other persons for specific purposes.  Therefore, with the existence of a coordinating mechanism already, it begs the question why the establishment of a parallel framework is being presented at this juncture, with no legal teeth.  The Restore Belize Council as proposed is merely a cabinet sub-committee of ministers.  While the Program Steering Committee which is a subordinate body is yet another coordinating group of ministry chief executive officers, representatives of the business community, NGO’s and Community Based Organizations (CBO).  Under the current economic constraints faced by the Government this proposal is hollow in nature and places further strain on limited financial resources.  A full-time Program Coordinating Unit will be ineffective in intervening in any meaningful way to prod ministries to execute their responsibilities; that is the function of cabinet and the Prime Minister.  This writer thus opines that a more meaningful proposal could have been one that provided greater expansion, accompanying funding mechanism and strengthening of the Crime Control Council.

The objectives of the sub-committees to be established addresses all key areas that ought to have been reflected in work programs of the existing ministries.  Police department reform, municipal government infrastructure and aesthetics, human development, legislative reform and communication are areas that ought to have continuous attention through the respective line ministries.  Furthermore, the attention of those areas must be a national one and not geographically targeted as can be expected with the creation of safe zones.  The creation of safe zones albeit a new proposal, is an existing mandate of the police department through its community outreach programs.  The accompanying budget that will be expended in the execution and implementation of these initiatives in the long term will reflect an increased cost to addressing crime in Belize and by extension an increased burden on tax payers.  It is important that as an initial step efforts should be made to assess the economic and social cost of crime to inform policy decision making.  In the absence of data on costing, the evaluation and appraisal of Government’s current effort will be most challenging.  From the presentation made by the Prime Minister one can surmise that verifiable indicators that would measure the progress of Plan Restore Belize may be lacking.  In as much as there is possibly an inclination to give this Plan a chance, critical analysis at this stage is imperative if the desired effects are to be realized.  Few would be able to argue against the seeming inconsistencies in the presentation.  One such inconsistency is the explanation for the non-renewal of the Chief Justice’s appointment based on age criteria when this position was not applied with the appointment of the new Attorney General.  The cabinet changes as the Opposition so rightly identified are simply musical chair changes.  The people’s call for Government to act must not be used as the impetus to expand cabinet, which is glaringly evident from the changes made.  When results are not forthcoming one would not be surprised to hear the explanation that a portfolio for education and youth is too burdensome.

In the next edition of this column this writer will examine the multifaceted impact of crime and the importance of assessing the cost incurred in the anticipation of crime, as a consequence of crime and the cost associated in responding to crime.

Gwyneth Sydney Nah

Comments welcome at GwynethNah@gmail.com

| | | | | |