Policing in the 21st century
We are policing in the 21st century using an obsolete model of the 19th century
The writer tweets @alibabakhel
We are policing in the 21st century using an obsolete model of the 19th century. Under the colonial policing model, common folk and the elite were not necessarily viewed as equals. Police officers having unbridled discretion is detrimental to public safety. Without public oversight and a public safety apparatus in place, the police cannot be transformed into a public-friendly force. Public safety is the protective shield offered by the state to protect innocents from the wrath of criminals, as well as police excesses.
The predatory colonial policing system only helps corrupt police officials and white-collar criminals. Both elements protect each other. Policing and democracy are synonymous with each other and serve to reinforce each other. Consequently, in contemporary governance, policing has gained significant importance. The image of governments is not solely determined by development projects, but rather on the basis of peace indexation and the image of the police. Our police keep the elites satisfied at the expense of the public. Luckily, in this decaying policing model there are a few dedicated officers who have taken positive initiatives and have earned public confidence. The problem is that once they are transferred, whatever initiatives they take evaporate.
Here, police chiefs often plead their cases using exaggerated figures. They need to understand that the public are the least pushed about statistical performance. Rather, it is ‘public satisfaction’ and peace indexation that are the real performance indicators.
Most countries that had once remained under colonial yolk had in the 20th century a policing apparatus that was, to a certain degree, autocratic. However, the popularity of democratic ideals and increased awareness of human rights infused in these states with notions of ‘public trust’ and ‘public safety’. Although there is a growing awareness within police organisations regarding reforms, these require public support and political guardianship. Hence, police reforms should not be an exclusive arrangement between the police and governments. Instead they need to be a cooperative triangle consisting of the police, public and government.
The country’s leadership need to realise that a feeble law-enforcement apparatus may be detrimental to its interests too. In a country where sons of former premiers, governors and judges are kidnapped in broad daylight, the only answer is a zero tolerance on law enforcement shortcomings coupled with a depoliticised and autonomous police force.
The police also need to change their autocratic mindset. This is not possible without a transparent system of recruitment, depoliticisation and frequent trainings. The police need to value the public, whether they be victims or clients, as they are the taxpayers who inject financial resources into the police force.
Without political ownership, the police cannot be transformed into a force offering effective public-friendly service. There is a need for steps such as public consultation, inclusion of police reforms in manifestos and the establishment of a functional public safety apparatus.
In developing countries, police reforms are primarily political gimmicks where mere increases in police manpower and cosmetic measures are projected as police ‘reforms’. Worldwide, there is a growing realisation that sustainable police reforms also require a change in the mindset of police chiefs.
Police reforms require hard, soft, long and immediate interventions. Hard approaches include firing of ‘deadwood’ and zero tolerance for corruption. Soft measures include defining, drafting and implementation of ethical standards and review of operational standards. However, real public-centric reforms are not possible without bringing the police under the wider scrutiny of the public. That is inevitable for a depoliticised force.
It is imperative that the police protect the diversity that exists within societies. This is not possible without having representation within the force, of different ethnic, sectarian and religious groups.
Owing partly to the negative long-term impacts of 9/11, the ideals of policing envisaged for the 21st century are struggling to be realised. As frontline law-enforcement apparatus aims to tackle the growing menace of militancy and terrorism, the police are expected to play the role of human rights protectors as well as that of combatants. Although detection and prevention are two primary functions of the police, the weak enforcement mechanism of other agencies forces the police to take up non-policing functions, thus overburdening it.
In Pakistan, policing is a shared domain of federal and provincial governments. However, there is no concept of local policing. While local governments were established last year at the union, tehsil and district levels in all provinces, without an enforcement apparatus at the local level, these institutions will be unable to deliver. It is high time Pakistan introduced police services at the local level.
In the wake of globalisation and the expanding nexus of terrorists, the Pakistani police must promote ‘police diplomacy’. Cooperation, such as that witnessed in the recent past when our law-enforcement officers visited Pathankot and London, will work well to deter crime.
Apart from prevention and investigation of routine crimes, the police are also confronted with cybercrime and terrorism. It would be wrong to assume that with mere technological advancement we will be able to change policing culture. In practice, it is accountability that will improve police performance. However, technology can be used for improved public service and accountability.
In the context of growing insecurity, the public expects greater visibility and availability of police on streets. The transition from colonial imprints to a public service requires a plan to conduct decentralisation in the police apparatus in phases. In the post-18th Amendment scenario there was an expectation that the provinces will invest more in law enforcement and consequently, reduce dependence on federal reinforcement. However, Sindh and Balochistan opted for the opposite, i.e., the Police Act of 1861 .The situation warrants that provinces are to concentrate on structural adjustment of the law-enforcement apparatus and fetch greater resources.
Our policing model is primarily numerical in nature, it is colonial and focuses on greater visibility, but priorities are changing across the globe. Thus, public dealing, response and dependence on technological solutions have increased. In Pakistan, the police are primarily mandated to reduce crime. Therefore, operationally, it attempts to reduce anti-social behaviour (ASB). If we are really keen on decreasing crime, our police need to address the issue of ASB. Otherwise, the force will always remain reactive and in a state of denial. Policing will be more effective once the police realise the importance of safer communities and local priorities. Policing in the 21st century not only requires enforcement, it needs public engagement as well. With increased public engagement, the prevention and detection of crime improves.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2016.
The predatory colonial policing system only helps corrupt police officials and white-collar criminals. Both elements protect each other. Policing and democracy are synonymous with each other and serve to reinforce each other. Consequently, in contemporary governance, policing has gained significant importance. The image of governments is not solely determined by development projects, but rather on the basis of peace indexation and the image of the police. Our police keep the elites satisfied at the expense of the public. Luckily, in this decaying policing model there are a few dedicated officers who have taken positive initiatives and have earned public confidence. The problem is that once they are transferred, whatever initiatives they take evaporate.
Here, police chiefs often plead their cases using exaggerated figures. They need to understand that the public are the least pushed about statistical performance. Rather, it is ‘public satisfaction’ and peace indexation that are the real performance indicators.
Most countries that had once remained under colonial yolk had in the 20th century a policing apparatus that was, to a certain degree, autocratic. However, the popularity of democratic ideals and increased awareness of human rights infused in these states with notions of ‘public trust’ and ‘public safety’. Although there is a growing awareness within police organisations regarding reforms, these require public support and political guardianship. Hence, police reforms should not be an exclusive arrangement between the police and governments. Instead they need to be a cooperative triangle consisting of the police, public and government.
The country’s leadership need to realise that a feeble law-enforcement apparatus may be detrimental to its interests too. In a country where sons of former premiers, governors and judges are kidnapped in broad daylight, the only answer is a zero tolerance on law enforcement shortcomings coupled with a depoliticised and autonomous police force.
The police also need to change their autocratic mindset. This is not possible without a transparent system of recruitment, depoliticisation and frequent trainings. The police need to value the public, whether they be victims or clients, as they are the taxpayers who inject financial resources into the police force.
Without political ownership, the police cannot be transformed into a force offering effective public-friendly service. There is a need for steps such as public consultation, inclusion of police reforms in manifestos and the establishment of a functional public safety apparatus.
In developing countries, police reforms are primarily political gimmicks where mere increases in police manpower and cosmetic measures are projected as police ‘reforms’. Worldwide, there is a growing realisation that sustainable police reforms also require a change in the mindset of police chiefs.
Police reforms require hard, soft, long and immediate interventions. Hard approaches include firing of ‘deadwood’ and zero tolerance for corruption. Soft measures include defining, drafting and implementation of ethical standards and review of operational standards. However, real public-centric reforms are not possible without bringing the police under the wider scrutiny of the public. That is inevitable for a depoliticised force.
It is imperative that the police protect the diversity that exists within societies. This is not possible without having representation within the force, of different ethnic, sectarian and religious groups.
Owing partly to the negative long-term impacts of 9/11, the ideals of policing envisaged for the 21st century are struggling to be realised. As frontline law-enforcement apparatus aims to tackle the growing menace of militancy and terrorism, the police are expected to play the role of human rights protectors as well as that of combatants. Although detection and prevention are two primary functions of the police, the weak enforcement mechanism of other agencies forces the police to take up non-policing functions, thus overburdening it.
In Pakistan, policing is a shared domain of federal and provincial governments. However, there is no concept of local policing. While local governments were established last year at the union, tehsil and district levels in all provinces, without an enforcement apparatus at the local level, these institutions will be unable to deliver. It is high time Pakistan introduced police services at the local level.
In the wake of globalisation and the expanding nexus of terrorists, the Pakistani police must promote ‘police diplomacy’. Cooperation, such as that witnessed in the recent past when our law-enforcement officers visited Pathankot and London, will work well to deter crime.
Apart from prevention and investigation of routine crimes, the police are also confronted with cybercrime and terrorism. It would be wrong to assume that with mere technological advancement we will be able to change policing culture. In practice, it is accountability that will improve police performance. However, technology can be used for improved public service and accountability.
In the context of growing insecurity, the public expects greater visibility and availability of police on streets. The transition from colonial imprints to a public service requires a plan to conduct decentralisation in the police apparatus in phases. In the post-18th Amendment scenario there was an expectation that the provinces will invest more in law enforcement and consequently, reduce dependence on federal reinforcement. However, Sindh and Balochistan opted for the opposite, i.e., the Police Act of 1861 .The situation warrants that provinces are to concentrate on structural adjustment of the law-enforcement apparatus and fetch greater resources.
Our policing model is primarily numerical in nature, it is colonial and focuses on greater visibility, but priorities are changing across the globe. Thus, public dealing, response and dependence on technological solutions have increased. In Pakistan, the police are primarily mandated to reduce crime. Therefore, operationally, it attempts to reduce anti-social behaviour (ASB). If we are really keen on decreasing crime, our police need to address the issue of ASB. Otherwise, the force will always remain reactive and in a state of denial. Policing will be more effective once the police realise the importance of safer communities and local priorities. Policing in the 21st century not only requires enforcement, it needs public engagement as well. With increased public engagement, the prevention and detection of crime improves.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2016.