OF BOUNDARIES AND WAR

Over the last 31 years much time has been spent on boundary changes in our
country and none on electoral reform designed to ensure that free and fair
elections results in a House of Assembly whose composition reflects the
votes cast by electors.

The National Democratic Party has addressed this issue in detail and has
placed on the table a set of proposals which would achieve that important
objective.

While we do not think it worthwhile to enter the present debate over
boundaries there are a few observations we will make.

Whatever is done there should be an odd number of seats. This we should
learn from the Trinidad experience. Instead of constantly adjusting
boundaries to conform with the law which limits the variation in numbers
between constituencies, why not repeal the law? There are no large
constituencies in an island the size of Barbados, divided into 28.

It was also interesting to note that political parties which in the past
have changed boundaries just before an election now admits that this is
undesirable conduct. Perhaps an apology to the victims of past conduct is
appropriate.

There was a time when a state declared war against another state and in the
civilised world a number of conventions, binding internationally, were put
in place which upheld the principles of international law, protected the
civil and human rights of all, and did nothing to undermine the justice
system of any country.

In quick succession we have had declarations of a war against drugs, a war
against crime and now a war against terrorism. In each instance we are
witnessing a gay abandonment of the fundamental civil rights of individuals
and a serious erosion of the integrity of nation states, not to mention the
grievous assault on the principles of international law which seeks to
secure lasting, legally binding, peaceful relationships between states. The
results have been predictable.

Instead of addressing the causes of crime and deficiencies in prevention by
law enforcing agencies, more emphasis was placed on stiffer penalties, more
jails, more repressive laws, more judicial killings and the like. The result
has been more crime, and more rapid growth of what has now become the No. 1
growth industry in the United States, namely building and management of
jails. This is the experience in the United States where no one seems to
remember that the only significant dent in the escalation of crime occurred
when 100 000 additional police officers were put on the streets.

The war against drugs is over, the drug barons have won. The transfer of 500
FBI agents from the DEA is part of the formalisation of this process. Many
billions of dollars have been spent. Many victims of the drug trade are
languishing in jails. The sloganisation of the war has diminished. Many
countries have allowed their laws to be changed in a manner which deny their
citizens important fundamental civil rights. If only a fraction of the money
and effort had been directed towards dealing with poverty eradication,
controlling demand for addictive drugs, research, rehabilitation and
treatment of victims, it would be a different world today.

They can be no drug trade if there is no demand for the drugs. Heroin,
cocaine, marijuana and the other drugs have been around for centuries,
consumed by a few. If the drug problem is ever to be solved, the fundamental
question to be answered is why these drugs are now consumed by the many.
Therein lies the solution.

Now we have another war, the war against terrorism. We have already seen the
approach which involves an assault on the civil rights of individuals,
military action and threats of military action, massive political propaganda
and, most dangerous, this silencing and vilification of any individual or
state which offers an alternative suggestion as to how terrorism should be
addressed.

This war against terrorism, presently being conducted, will be an even more
spectacular failure.