Public safety and the police

The writer is a freelance columnist based in
Islamabad.

There is a growing sense among its citizens that Pakistan is under siege – mostly because of internal security threats. Notwithstanding the claims of restoration of peace and tranquillity in the country, there is much to be desired, for real peace does not come with ‘unilateral offensives’ with a martial logic sans politics.

‘Unilateral’ from the perspective of disgruntled lot who tend to gravitate towards extremist ideologies in the absence of promising political and economic alternatives. State functionaries lack vision, will and interest to win hearts and minds through an inclusive social policy. The victimhood syndrome gets reinforced when the legal, political and economic systems fail to deliver justice, peace, basic services and entitlements for the disenfranchised, disadvantaged and excluded sections of our society.

Our national problems have been multiplied over the years as we failed to find ways of political integration through the nation-building project – an unfinished business for 70 years now. An over-stretched army and under-resourced civil defence infrastructure have proved to be an inadequate arrangement to deal with worsening security situation in the country.

There are two fundamental approaches to deal with the menace of terrorism. One is to take short-term steps to transfer the burden of internal security from the military to the police and the second is to strengthen democratic institutions to integrate the centrifugal ideologies in the narrative of nation-building.

Strengthening democratic institutions for national integration is a time-tested phenomenon worldwide. Therefore, we must now engage dissenting voices rather than excluding them and making them vulnerable to extremism which breeds terrorism. The real life calculus of extremism is not simple enough to conclude in a paragraph, but one broad-based approach that worked well in similar contexts is to engage the aggrieved sections and address those grievances through socioeconomic and political means. Much has been written about the vitality of democracy and its long-term role for social transformation. It is equally important to focus on some short-term goals for course correction in our bid to secure peace and stability in Pakistan.

While militaries worldwide are considered to be good at defending national borders, the matters of internal security must be dealt with through effective policing and an improved civil defence infrastructure. In Pakistan, the police are the least preferred option when it comes to improving internal security – with good reason, though. Our policing system is thought to be inept, incompetent and corrupt. While effective policing is central to internal security worldwide, the deterioration of our policing system into a defunct establishment is yet another example of the sorry state of affairs of the nation.

Policing is as old as human civilisation but organised policing with modern means of maintaining public order is the product of the emergence of the nation-state. The first historically significant landmark in modern policing was the establishment of the London Metropolitan Police on September 29, 1829. This policing model is being followed in most countries today, in particular, in the former British colonies including Pakistan.

Most South Asian nations either have an outdated police law in place or no law at all. For instance, countries like Maldives have no police legislation yet. In addition, India and Bangladesh continue to retain the antiquated Police Act (1861), a legacy of British India. While Sri Lanka started the process of police reforms in 2001 by amending its constitution, Pakistan was the first country in South Asia to initiate legislative reform on the issue of policing when the National Reconstruction Bureau prepared a draft law to re-organise the police in 2001.

The Police Order (2002) came into force on August 14, 2002. Originally, the spirit behind the reforms initiative was to transform the police from a ‘force’ into a ‘public service’. As implied in the documents of the Police Reform Order, the vision of the Police Order 2002 was to develop a police system that was professionally competent, operationally neutral (not politically motivated in its conduct), service-oriented and accountable to the people.

Some of the key features of the Police Order 2002 were, one, financial, administrative and operational independence with an enhanced role of the Inspector General (IG) of police in the provincial governance structure. This entails that an incumbent IG had to act as secretary to the provincial government rather than being subservient to the provincial home department. Two, tenure protection of police personnel for three years (every officer to be posted at his/her service area for at least three years to reduce politically induced transfers).

Three, in case an officer was to be removed before the expiry of his/her tenure it was to be through a transparent process where each party had to explain their position in writing to the higher authority. This aimed to insulate the police from political pressures.

Four, establishment of the National Public Safety Commission. With twelve members, six of whom were to be selected under the supervision of the chief justice of Pakistan as the head of the selection committee. The other six were to be elected members (three from the treasury benches and three from the opposition). The committee was to be responsible for decisions regarding the structure, recruitments and operational remit of the police.

Five, establishment of an accessible Police Complaints Authority at all levels, for the citizens to report their grievances to the authority and hence make the police accountable to the public for their conduct and service.

Six, establishment of a Federal Agencies’ Coordination Committee at the district and range level including sessions judges, public prosecutors and public representatives. The committee, thus constituted, had the autonomy to discuss the localised challenges to law and order, crime and other public safety issues and to recommend a devolved mechanism for the enforcement of actions.

And finally, functional specialisation of the police service by inducting experts for watch and ward (operations), security and investigation rather than relying on the discretionary powers of an SHO.

This was a landmark reform package to help inculcate a sense of public service in our outmoded colonial policing structure. However, the Police Order (2002) was significantly curtailed in its intended scope by amendments that were subsequently introduced between 2004 and 2007. While the original 2002 Order aimed to de-politicise the functioning of the police throughout Pakistan – necessary to ensure democratic policing – the subsequent amendments appear to have defeated the very purpose of reforms.

For example, the amendments stipulated that of the six elected members of the Provincial Public Safety and Police Complaints Commission, four would be from the treasury and 2two from the opposition. In contrast to the original 3-3 split envisioned by the 2002 Order, this amendment tilts the balance in favour of the ruling regime.

With all its flaws and shortcomings, the Police Order 2002 was an important initiative for our policing system and it was vital to build on this. Rather than building on this reforms package, though, subsequent governments stripped it of its essence to ensure that the police remain subservient to political objectives. If sanity prevails in our polity, these reforms must be brought in and must be implemented in letter and spirit so that we are able to manage our internal security issue effectively.

Here are some suggestions to follow if we are interested in improving the policing structure in the country, in particular when most of the onus rests with the civilian government to main public order. For one, the police should be subservient to the needs and aspirations of the community they serve.

The government should facilitate extensive deliberation among stakeholders like police personnel, civil society, media, and local community platforms etc to come up with a widely accepted framework of police role. The Police Order 2002 though was formulated through deliberation but the consultation was restricted to a particular segment and hence it did not win the support of politically elected governments.

Further, any new reforms must include a strong monitoring framework to assess its working and to do course correction whenever needed by engaging a third party. Change must be incentivised; the police culture and image needs to be changed and an institutional mechanism must be establishment for non-partisan recruitment.

And an important change must be the mainstreaming of gender-sensitive policies and a work environment where women can easily opt for police employment.

Email: ahnihal@yahoo.com