Straight Line
Governance, police reforms and all that
THE caretaker government has taken a number of important steps with a view to facilitating good governance. Good governance, by all accounts, would mean satisfactory performance of those regulatory outfits whose activities have a direct bearing on the keeping of peace and preservation of order. Viewed in this light, the significance of streamlining the enforcement administration, particularly the police, can hardly be over-emphasised.
One has to remember that the thrust of public sector reform is to improve public services and reduce costs. There is an emphasis on the notion of privatisation. However, the role of the police in preserving peace is unlikely to be put out to contract by even the most ardent advocate of privatisation. Of course, that does not obviate the imperative of seeking public cooperation to solve crimes.
It is time to once again remind ourselves that reforms in the enforcement segment must make it a point to ensure that we turn police into an organisation that enforces the law at the implicit wish of society so as to make legitimate government effective.
The conduct of the police should be such that a reasonable person would approve of it, given the circumstances prevailing at the time the action was carried out; and, in addition to being answerable to his senior officers for his actions, the reformed police shall invariably be accountable to the law.
The above imperative has been repeated because it has been our unfortunate experience to witness a police force which simply enforced the wishes of the government, or the party, for whom the rule of law has not been a respected principle.
We need to remember that where the government suffers from a legitimacy problem, the role of police will be to suppress dissent rather than enforce law.
While on the subject of reform and good governance, it may be relevant to take a close look at our police organisation. The force is nationally organised. Every effort is made to ensure that local ties are neither sustained not created, and, ideally, the recruits of the national police force are unmarried, stationed in barracks, trained to obey orders unquestioningly, and view the local population with suspicion.
Their uniform is military in appearance, and they are always conspicuously armed. There is an officer class, chosen largely for their political background and loyalty rather than their officer-like qualities.
The first purpose of our paramilitary police force is to support the state; therefore, their primary role is a political one. The state, rather than the law, is supreme; and the major enemy of the police is the political subversive rather than the criminal.
Under the system, it is a legitimate and, indeed, a desirable activity of the police to gather information of all kinds, and the ordinary, law-abiding citizen is no more entitled to privacy than the inveterate plotter or reckless villain.
Historically speaking, the police organisation in the Indo-Pak subcontinent evolved principally in response to the political realities of the times. Enforcement of law and maintenance of order under the system designed by the British were the dual responsibilities of the executive magistracy and the police.
Police was placed under the general control and direction of the district magistrate in violation of the universally accepted principles of unity of command and separation of powers.
The system worked well from the standpoint of clearly perceived objectives of colonial rule. Rule of law was an objective, but was understandably subordinate, in the ultimate, to the demands of "order." As there was no day-to-day conflict between the dictates of justice and the interests of order, it was possible to achieve significantly high levels of both law and order.
The system that had worked reasonably well during the colonial era started faltering after the British left the subcontinent in August 1947. It failed because its design was inappropriate. It had no built-in checks against the forces that were legitimately unleashed by the political processes in the wake of freedom from colonial rule.
The basic objective of this design was to give an instrument in the hands of the government to control the natives. Service to the people was not the objective of this design.
Historically, policing in south Asia has been, by and large, a one-sided affair; with communities having no or little say in local policing plans and strategies that affect them the most. The idea that police are people and people are police has not taken root in the region.
Understandably, the Police Act 1861 was silent on the issue of community consultation. Rather, it focused on the responsibility of communities to ensure order, and should any member step out of line the whole community would face vicarious punishment.
To be realistic, we have to admit that an outmoded administrative legacy is undermining reform supported by many national and international expert missions. For too long, the basic functioning of police has remained unchanged. What is needed is to make improvement of the quality of law enforcement a permanent and integral part of the national agenda, regardless of which party is in power.
There is growing recognition that the task requires a concerted effort by all concerned -- the state, the private sector and civil society. Without enduring partnership and coalition building among the principal actors involved, there can be no hope of significant police reform.
An enlightened and determined political leadership, high levels of public support, and a motivated and well-led private sector are absolutely critical for making a change. Equally, or even more importantly, a civil society that demands and supports higher and better standards of police performance is a must for bringing change.
Without focusing our debate on the organisational inadequacies, it seems pointless to spend time on the rhetoric of police reform. If the organisation designed to carry out reform is incapacitated, the rhetoric alone won't take us anywhere.
If the vehicle won't move, it hardly matters which direction we point it; we won't get there. Today, the core issue is not so much what the police does, but why it does what it does. It is time to make the police work for the people.
The police-reform debate seems to be attracting a wider and more serious audience. The issues are receiving focused and continuing attention in the media. Let us hope that, rather than giving rise to arguments and attitudes that have often in the past confused the real issues, created bad blood and hindered objective thinking, it is possible to address this vital subject more dispassionately, and strictly in accordance with the dictates of public interest.
The citizens of Bangladesh will hope that their police act as a service and not a force, although they must be prepared to use legitimate and requisite force on occasion. They must be clear in their main purpose, and recognise that they also fulfil several ancillary roles.
They must be able to lead the public in some ways, and follow in others. They must remember the distinction between society and state; and between state and government. The police service is there to uphold the law; it is not responsible for making it. Too close an identification between the police and the government of the day will bring trouble for the police.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments