Law and order: Only Government’s or shared responsibility?

We are not going to be able to combat crimes – of any sort – merely by State interventions

By Dr R Neerunjun Gopee

Among the major issues of constant concern to citizens, two that frequently arise — whether in private conversations or in the marketplace — are the rising prices of everything, particularly the increasing cost of the food basket, and the law and order situation. With every successive change of regime over the years, there is criticism by the prospective one of the incumbent’s record of a worsening situation, and a promise that the installation of the oppositional one will definitely be accompanied by an improvement in the situation.

“Many times, there have been calls for teaching civic and moral values in educational institutions, starting from the very first levels in primary schools. The inculcation of values must claim the attention of the authorities, represented by leaders who often pontificate about values in their interventions. To that extent, they can be made to share the collective responsibility for what is happening around the country, and the sooner they address the problem the better it will be for every citizen, why for the country as a whole…”

Except, as we have seen repeatedly, that this doesn’t really happen.

As regards law and order, clearly it is primarily the State that is responsible through the judiciary and the police. On the other hand, though, as rational citizens – supplemented with reasonableness where required — we have to make up our minds as to how much of the State we want in our lives. On this score we are not only ambiguous, but hypocrites as well. As long as things are going on fine, that is, we are getting on in our lives within the national boundary and more or less respecting the laws of the country, we do not think much about government – or the State (these two terms will be used interchangeably in the course of this article). But immediately as something happens to us or to society at large, we look for scapegoats, and among the first ones are those from other communities, or the government.

For example, whether it is the killings that peak from time to time or the extreme road accidents that claim individual lives and sometimes whole families, the blame is laid entirely at the door of the government for failing to ensure law and order. But we must ask ourselves: to what extent can a government regulate the personal behaviour of individuals? Try to clamp down on alcohol sale, and there is an uproar from those who are in the business. This is supported by all manner of advertisements to promote drinking (at one time youngsters were especially targeted with smaller cans/packagings more affordable to their pockets) – accompanied by glossy publicity of the latest brands and their virtues – and invariably featuring women who are not necessarily of less virtue but are made to appear as such by wearing the minimum in these adverts.

Although, to be fair, such publicity has been reduced in the public sphere, still it is a fact that most ofthe crimes that are reported are either alcohol or hard drug-related. Worse, many of these crimes directed against those who are most vulnerable: women and children. But worst of all: against close ones, those that are supposed to be of one’s blood or under one’s custody, whether in a legal relationship (marriage) or a live-in relationship, commonly called by the derogatory term concubinage. In all these situations of living together, the starting point of the relationship is, presumably, an attraction towards each other for either emotional or material reasons.

Some years ago, there was an uproar about the cruel murder of a little girl by her drunk uncle.The Child Development Unit was cited as not having lived up to its responsibility, apparently in spite ofbeing informed. In such matters, it is the duty of the competent authorities to establish the facts and address any weaknesses that the structure may contain. But what have the religious and social organizations been doing? Where are the priests and religious heads who are otherwise so vocal about the defence of faith and identity? Shouldn’t they consider spending more of that energy on guiding their flock on how to live better lives, to take care of those they have responsibility for or children who are entrusted to their care (whether temporary or permanent).

The times surely call for such eminences to discover afresh their true vocation and pursue it, rather than depending on government to pass more and more laws, and put up more and more of restraining structures in the hope that people will abide by or resort to them. There is a saying that an Englishman’s home is his castle, meaning that that’s his private domain in which no one may interfere with his doings. It seems that we have many Englishman’s castles, scaled down socially, in this country. But where the government cannot penetrate – the psyche of people – the community can, by means of examples and peer pressure, with the help of volunteers and genuine leaders who maintain a proximity to the people and know their ways, rather than cloistering themselves in ivory towers and issuing from time-to-time prescriptive soundbites which have more sound than content.

We are not going to be able to combat crimes – of any sort – merely by State interventions. It is only by inculcating solid moral values in individuals and families that this goal can be achieved. Government’s role, apart from enacting laws for the overall security of the country, is perhaps to identify and give stronger support to organizations which are demonstrably engaged in imparting such values. There are many ways of doing so. The easiest way is to dish out some money and leave it at that. But the right way would, instead, be in the form of supporting say, resource persons or the access to or provision of materials. And seeking accountability and results through regular reporting of activities carried out and details of the latter.

This is the only way that the individual, society and government can come together to address the larger issue oflaw and order. Many times, there have been calls for teaching civic and moral values in educational institutions, starting from the very first levels in primary schools. The inculcation of values must claim the attention of the authorities, represented by leaders who often pontificate about values in their interventions. To that extent, they can be made to share the collective responsibility for what is happening around the country, and the sooner they address the problem the better it will be for every citizen, why for the country as a whole. Let us hope that these appeals will not be like a call in the wilderness.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 20 September 2024