Our presidential campaigners should be accorded protection by the state

Sep 20, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I was giving some serious thought to the question of security during the upcoming national and regional elections when President Obama is reported to have said in response to a question of Americans having to worry about nuclear or radiological attacks that – in his view, the most likely scenario was “more of a lone wolf operation than a large, well-coordinated terrorist attack.”
One aspect which engaged my mind was the issue of protection for the presidential candidates. It goes without saying that not a few of the candidates consider that they are grassroots and therefore would consider it a waste of time and energy to appear preoccupied with their own personal safety while on the hustings.
At the outset I wish to say that such an attitude is eminently selfish and does not display the appropriate level of concern for the feelings and expectations of those for whom they would be president.
It also does not take into consideration that there may be a few ‘misguided’ souls who bear myriad grouses, real or imagined, against not only the system, but are prepared to identify the catalysts of systemic ills in the form of persons blamable for those grouses.
Further it is not unknown that amid those “malcontents” may be individuals who believe that they have nothing “more” to lose.
The recent Norway massacre happened because, according to his lawyer, Anders Behring Breivik who is accused of killing 69 people at a youth camp, believed he was saving Norway and Europe from Muslims and multiculturalism.
During November 2009 a U.S. Army psychiatrist, allegedly an Islamic extremist, killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. President George H.W. Bush would habitually enter the Rose Garden from the Oval Office to greet tourists lined along the Pennsylvania Avenue fence creating headaches for the Secret Service agents who did not go away even when they caught a man with a pistol which they thought he probably intended to use on the president.
The paramount danger inherent in a lone wolf scenario is that the probability of detection is inversely proportional to your intelligence gathering capabilities. Why? Because s/he is not aligned to any criminal or terrorist network which may be on intelligence agencies’ radar. Secondly, s/he in all likelihood has not confided in anyone.
Thirdly, the oft repeated porous border rationale (in the Guyana context) is likely to be utilized for the purpose of acquiring materiel. In effect if a lone wolf does not provide reason to stop, search and detain s/he is more than likely to succeed.
As much as we sometimes love to hate certain countries I truly believe that the question of personal security for presidential candidates should be addressed in keeping with sensible norms as are practiced elsewhere.
In the U.S. the Secret Service is authorized to protect major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election.
Please note that I am not about to go into any debate on the efficacy of such an arrangement except to say that in much the same way our presidential campaigners should be accorded protection by the state.
(As a point of interest former president Clinton is the last U.S. president who will be receiving lifetime protection from the Secret Service under the 1965 Congress-authorized legislation (Public Law 89-186) since the 1997 Congress-enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office).
Laary Bimi, Chairman of the Ghana National Commission for Civic Education, suggested that presidential candidates should be provided bodyguards by the state, irrespective of their political parties, for the 2008 polls.
Bimi placed his argument in the context of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto after a rally in Pakistan the preceding December.
However, he stressed that the state should consult with candidates before bodyguards are provided, and that there should be no discrimination in the number of guards each candidate is allowed.
In the Maldives, security is provided to presidential candidates and their running mates under Article 11 of the Election Act 12/2008 by the Dignitary Protection Unit.
The Head of State and other VIPs are safeguarded by the Special Protection Group (SPG) which is a unit of the Maldivian Defence Force, and is staffed by highly trained soldiers.
Of course the issue of political influence is ever present, since the services of the SPG are enjoyed almost exclusively by the president.
Among the foreseeable challenges to any arrangement where candidates are protected by the state for an agreed duration in the run-up to elections are available suitable personnel to comprise advance teams (to visit scheduled venues; impromptu stops do not give opportunity to make attack plans); pre-posting; close protection; protective intelligence; and on-the-ground liaison.
Finding an appreciable level of personnel will not be easy in manpower resource-constrained countries like Guyana, especially when one considers the difficulties faced by more advanced security services.
However, these should not distract us from the potential lone wolves in our midst.
Patrick E. Mentore

---

---