Hullabaloo of police reforms
In order to meet public expectations, investment in law enforcement and police reforms is inevitable
The writer tweets @alibabakhel
“You cannot reform your society or institution without opening your mind”
— Bashar al-Assad
In Pakistan, police reforms either experienced reversal or remained victim of the status quo, hence they are a much discussed but hardly executed reality. Furthermore, police reforms primarily remained theoretical and shelved in libraries, thus remained severed from reality.
Though the National Action Plan depicts the resolve to reform the criminal justice system, including the police, the provinces are yet to have benefited from it. For decades, Pakistan experienced undemocratic rule; no wonder, traditionally and historically, the police had been used as an instrument of power instead of an efficient public service. Police law, in fact, remained a federal concern and law enforcement, a provincial domain. However, with the strengthening of democratic processes, there are strong voices to align police law, procedures and training with the essence of constitution.
In 1855, to assess the oppression carried out by police officials, the British Indian government constituted a commission popularly known as “Torture Commission” which shows that the imperialists themselves confessed that the system they devised was primarily inhuman. To improve policing apparatus of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, a new policing model was introduced in 1856 but the war of independence in 1857 interrupted such reforms. In Police Act 1861, the police was modelled on Irish constabulary, serving no more than an instrument in the hands of the executives.
In 1902, a report on police reforms documented: “The police force is far from efficient; it is defective in training and organisation; it is inadequately supervised; it is generally regarded as corrupt and oppressive; and it has utterly failed to secure the confidence and cordial cooperation of the people”.
Post-independence, Quaid-e-Azam wanted to introduce the metropolitan system within the police force but his death halted this scheme. From 1951 to 2000, a number of commissions and committees were entrusted to reform the police including “Recommendations of Sir Oliver Gilbert Grace, IG Police, NWFP”, Police Commission 1961 headed by Justice JB Constantine, Police Commission 1971 headed by General Mitha, Police Station Enquiry Committee 1976 headed by MAK Chaudhry, Law & Order Sub-Committee 1976 headed by Ch Fazal Haque, Police Reforms Committee 1976 headed by Rafi Raza, Committee on Police Welfare, Promotion & Seniority Rules 1981 headed by IGP Orakzai, Cabinet Committee on the Emoluments of SHOs 1982, Cabinet Committee on Determining the Status of SHOs 1983, Rauf Ali Committee 1983,Police Committee 1985 headed by Aslam Hayat, Report of the two-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India 1987, Report of the seven-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India 1989, Police Reforms Implementation Committee 1990, Report of the Japanese Police Delegation on the Policing in Pakistan 1996, Committee on Police Reforms 1997, Report of the Good Governance Group on Police Reforms: Committee Vision 1998 and Report of the Focal Group on Police Reforms: NRB Draft 2000 .
Globally, development of policing as a profession is categorised into four eras. The reforms era (1850-1920), professional era (1930-1970), community strategies era (1980-2000) and integrated systems era (2000) but unfortunately, we are yet to have swayed from the reforms era. However, after the implementation of police order (PO) 2002, practical steps were taken to better the forces but within a couple years, the enthusiasm was lost in thick fog of vested interests. In efforts to improving police issues such as ineffective command and control, inefficiency, corruption, poor public dealing, trust deficit, arbitrary use of power, the misuse of authority and political interference need to be addressed. Addressing these concerns requires diagnostic approaches coupled with the establishment of public safety apparatus and independent complaint authorities.
Though PO 2002 ensured the protecting tenure for senior police officers, due to vested interests, public welfare and safety were compromised and safety commissions manipulated in favour of the ruling elite.
Holistically speaking, police reforms include structural, attitudinal and technological innovations. Regrettably, there is hardly a realisation as to devising ways and means for the improvement of public services. Governments and the police management must realise that without employing technological solutions and attitudinal changes, standards of policing cannot be rehabilitated. In an ideal setup, the public, the ruling elite and police management must synchronise their aspirations.
Without political manifestation and ownership, reforms may serve as nothing more than an eyewash and wastage of resources and time. Though after promulgation of PO 2002, Balochistan opted for conversion of B into A area, however, instead of waiting for the success or failure of the conversion plan, the provincial legislature opted for the colonial police Act of 1861 hence voting for reversal. On the contrary, recently, for the first time ever, K-P opted for its own police law. Nevertheless, the question arises that in the presence of a provincial legislature, why was police law promulgated through an ordinance? To convert it into a true democratic law, it is imperative upon the provincial legislature to ensure extensive debate and transform it into an “Act”.
Sustainable reforms warrant inclusion of not only the stakeholders within the criminal justice system but also the representation from civil society. Likewise, reforms in other fields too, the implementation component always remained a lurking missing link, however, section 144 of the recently promulgated K-P Police Ordinance (KPPO) tried to address this aspect. Section 144 of KPPO warrants appointment of an “Implementation Commissioner” who will oversee its application and execution.
In a dejected scenario, a positive feature is the growing realisation in the country that development schemes alone may not determine the efficacy of governments but rather the governance apparatus — particularly the law enforcement will also affect the mindset of the public. Therefore, in order to meet public expectations, investment in law enforcement and police reforms is inevitable.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 23rd, 2016.
— Bashar al-Assad
In Pakistan, police reforms either experienced reversal or remained victim of the status quo, hence they are a much discussed but hardly executed reality. Furthermore, police reforms primarily remained theoretical and shelved in libraries, thus remained severed from reality.
Though the National Action Plan depicts the resolve to reform the criminal justice system, including the police, the provinces are yet to have benefited from it. For decades, Pakistan experienced undemocratic rule; no wonder, traditionally and historically, the police had been used as an instrument of power instead of an efficient public service. Police law, in fact, remained a federal concern and law enforcement, a provincial domain. However, with the strengthening of democratic processes, there are strong voices to align police law, procedures and training with the essence of constitution.
In 1855, to assess the oppression carried out by police officials, the British Indian government constituted a commission popularly known as “Torture Commission” which shows that the imperialists themselves confessed that the system they devised was primarily inhuman. To improve policing apparatus of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, a new policing model was introduced in 1856 but the war of independence in 1857 interrupted such reforms. In Police Act 1861, the police was modelled on Irish constabulary, serving no more than an instrument in the hands of the executives.
In 1902, a report on police reforms documented: “The police force is far from efficient; it is defective in training and organisation; it is inadequately supervised; it is generally regarded as corrupt and oppressive; and it has utterly failed to secure the confidence and cordial cooperation of the people”.
Post-independence, Quaid-e-Azam wanted to introduce the metropolitan system within the police force but his death halted this scheme. From 1951 to 2000, a number of commissions and committees were entrusted to reform the police including “Recommendations of Sir Oliver Gilbert Grace, IG Police, NWFP”, Police Commission 1961 headed by Justice JB Constantine, Police Commission 1971 headed by General Mitha, Police Station Enquiry Committee 1976 headed by MAK Chaudhry, Law & Order Sub-Committee 1976 headed by Ch Fazal Haque, Police Reforms Committee 1976 headed by Rafi Raza, Committee on Police Welfare, Promotion & Seniority Rules 1981 headed by IGP Orakzai, Cabinet Committee on the Emoluments of SHOs 1982, Cabinet Committee on Determining the Status of SHOs 1983, Rauf Ali Committee 1983,Police Committee 1985 headed by Aslam Hayat, Report of the two-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India 1987, Report of the seven-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India 1989, Police Reforms Implementation Committee 1990, Report of the Japanese Police Delegation on the Policing in Pakistan 1996, Committee on Police Reforms 1997, Report of the Good Governance Group on Police Reforms: Committee Vision 1998 and Report of the Focal Group on Police Reforms: NRB Draft 2000 .
Globally, development of policing as a profession is categorised into four eras. The reforms era (1850-1920), professional era (1930-1970), community strategies era (1980-2000) and integrated systems era (2000) but unfortunately, we are yet to have swayed from the reforms era. However, after the implementation of police order (PO) 2002, practical steps were taken to better the forces but within a couple years, the enthusiasm was lost in thick fog of vested interests. In efforts to improving police issues such as ineffective command and control, inefficiency, corruption, poor public dealing, trust deficit, arbitrary use of power, the misuse of authority and political interference need to be addressed. Addressing these concerns requires diagnostic approaches coupled with the establishment of public safety apparatus and independent complaint authorities.
Though PO 2002 ensured the protecting tenure for senior police officers, due to vested interests, public welfare and safety were compromised and safety commissions manipulated in favour of the ruling elite.
Holistically speaking, police reforms include structural, attitudinal and technological innovations. Regrettably, there is hardly a realisation as to devising ways and means for the improvement of public services. Governments and the police management must realise that without employing technological solutions and attitudinal changes, standards of policing cannot be rehabilitated. In an ideal setup, the public, the ruling elite and police management must synchronise their aspirations.
Without political manifestation and ownership, reforms may serve as nothing more than an eyewash and wastage of resources and time. Though after promulgation of PO 2002, Balochistan opted for conversion of B into A area, however, instead of waiting for the success or failure of the conversion plan, the provincial legislature opted for the colonial police Act of 1861 hence voting for reversal. On the contrary, recently, for the first time ever, K-P opted for its own police law. Nevertheless, the question arises that in the presence of a provincial legislature, why was police law promulgated through an ordinance? To convert it into a true democratic law, it is imperative upon the provincial legislature to ensure extensive debate and transform it into an “Act”.
Sustainable reforms warrant inclusion of not only the stakeholders within the criminal justice system but also the representation from civil society. Likewise, reforms in other fields too, the implementation component always remained a lurking missing link, however, section 144 of the recently promulgated K-P Police Ordinance (KPPO) tried to address this aspect. Section 144 of KPPO warrants appointment of an “Implementation Commissioner” who will oversee its application and execution.
In a dejected scenario, a positive feature is the growing realisation in the country that development schemes alone may not determine the efficacy of governments but rather the governance apparatus — particularly the law enforcement will also affect the mindset of the public. Therefore, in order to meet public expectations, investment in law enforcement and police reforms is inevitable.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 23rd, 2016.