For quite some time now, we have been incensed by what appears to be a double standard in law enforcement in this country. On any given day, hundreds of hawkers and peddlers set up shop on city streets and on private property. Convinced that they can operate with impunity, they ply their wares and dare the police to do something about it. This is egregiously wrong. It is doubly unfair for others who do obey the law and who do pay their pair share of taxes.
One extreme example suffices to illustrate the entire matter. When, for example, a so-called ‘bush mechanic’ is allowed to set up shop on the side of a street, he pollutes the environment, thus passing costs on to the wider community. He pockets money, pays no taxes and undermines the rule of law.
His example is multiplied by his fellow law-breakers who sell toys, clothes, and food in so-called periodic markets. This blight and contagion of law breaking is threatening to destroy this country’s already deeply riven social fabric. If The Bahamas is to be restored to a semblance of dignity and decency, laws should be obeyed.
We know it for a fact that human civilization is impossible in the absence of accepted norms for the ordering of social conduct. Whenever a society reaches the point in its degeneration where rules can be flouted with impunity, respect for law and order disintegrates and then dies.
Today our thoughts are directed to this and other matters as we reflect on the evidence that the authorities are apparently casting a blind eye on blatant law-breaking. Our specific reference is to any number of so called periodic markets which spring up. Hawkers and peddlers of a wide variety of good are to be seen all over this town selling goods. The elementary fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these people are breaking the law.
As such, therefore, something must be wrong with a scenario where some citizens are allowed to break laws and others are obliged to follow them. Indeed, there is an argument which suggests that when authorities allow some people to get away with their breaches of the law, they encourage others to do the same.
Now, we know that there will always be people who will argue that these periodic markets serve a necessary social function and that the people who engage in them are only trying to make an honest living. While this argument does have some surface validity, it misses the essential point which is that so long as a behaviour is illegal authorities should enforce the law. Indeed, in the instance of the numerous people who set up shop on the side of streets, a simple notice from the police might suffice.
As far as we are concerned, the police send the wrong message to all and sundry when they see laws being broken and fail to carry out their duty.
Now, less we be misunderstood, we are not suggesting that people should be restrained from trying to earn a living. If – for example – it is determined that there is a compelling public interest involved in allowing citizens and residents to sell goods on the streets, and on other public property, the laws should be amended to make this possible.
Indeed, as we would argue, the government would then be in a position to regulate these operations and perhaps even derive revenue from these permits.
In the current scenario, what happens is that hawkers and peddlers are able to break the law, make money and pay no taxes, thus effectively passing on certain costs to business operators who do obey the law and who do pay their fair share of the taxes.
As all fair minded Bahamians know, something is always wrong when some citizens can get a free ride at the expense of others. The burden of paying taxes on business operations should not be carried by the few, while the many get away scot-free.
The essential burden, therefore, of the thesis we are proposing is two fold. In the first instance it makes no social sense for the government to condone law-breaking. This only serves to erode and undermine respect for law and order generally speaking. If for example, the government were to allow street vendors to break the law with impunity, how then is the same government right in its judgement to enforce laws relating to vehicular traffic? The contradictions in this approach to selective law enforcement are easy to see. Second, and as a direct corollary of the first principle is the fact that social order is itself undermined when the rule of law is flouted.
ï¾ Interestingly, there is currently no rule which suggests that the government has no option but to enforce the current law. Indeed, if the government were to reach the conclusion that it would be in the public interest to regularize periodic markets, nothing prevents it from doing just that by taking the matter to parliament for requisite action. This would be the decent and sensible thing to do.
In the meantime, however, there is no getting around the fact that laws are being broken, zoning regulations are being flouted, public health is being jeopardised and a small number of people are benefiting at the expense of the community at large.
The government, too, is also a loser as no taxes are being paid by these self-serving people parading as businessmen and entrepreneurs. What is ironic is that from time to time, the public is regaled with stories about how the police have swooped upon vendors plying liquor from their homes. This is ironic because the same police officers have to pass by hawkers and peddlers on the street who are also working illegally. The bottom line is that law and order is eroded and undermined whenever rules are selectively enforced. While we do not wish to be considered naive and churlish, we insist that laws are essential for the maintenance of our shared civilization.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
