‘Meeting culture’ mars police performance

Islamabad
The traditional meetings, held at different levels, have factually ruined the entire policing system, affecting operational and investigative process of the police.
The authorities believe solution of all transgression is only official meeting not for the objective to control chillingly increasing ratio of crimes but to shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of subordinates and to release pressure exerted on them by the higher authorities.
The ‘Meeting Culture’ in day-to-day affairs of police department is main reason for damaging the performance of the police department. Senior police officials from ranks of IGP, SSP, SP (zonal police officer) and SDPO hold routine meetings with their subordinates to give the impression of their active vigilance in their jurisdictions while in reality all such formal routine meetings prove to be a futile exercise in combating crimes and devising any mechanism for improving police working. All such formal routine meetings proved only formal in their objective and left the subordinates to sacrifice their basic tasks and responsibilities to ensure their compulsorily attendance in these official routine meetings with the high-ups.
The meetings usually prove only time consuming for lower rank police officials who have to address other multiple cases in their respective police stations, while on the other hand, senior police officials find it a convenient way to impress subordinate officials for telling them about their daily engagements.
During last one month, scores of crimes in the federal capital, including target killing of PIMS cardiologist Dr Shahid Nawaz, terrorist attack at Imambargah Qasr-e-Sakina, armed dacoity at the residence of former president of Pakistan Wasim Sajjad in Chak Shahzad and looting of houses in sectors G-10, G-11, F-10 and F-11 remained clueless despite notices from the high-ups. High-profile cases remained inconclusive as police officials find it convenient to satisfy their respective seniors in these routine meetings instead of making investigations in these crimes.
Secondly ‘routine meetings’ inside the police department proved only a platform to transfer responsibilities and annoyance on subsequent subordinates. No one accepts the responsibility of fatal crimes in their respective jurisdictions and get free by holding responsible their subordinates.
Notices taken by senior police officials and government representatives on crime incidents also remained limited to file-work solely due to this ‘meeting culture’ in police department. The AIG summons meetings with SSP operations and SP rank officials with SSPs, and SP rank officials reprimand SDPO and SHOs to resolve high-profile cases but all this exercise remains unfruitful as even subordinates focus on how to satisfy the senior officials in routine meetings.
Negligence is a heinous crime and until and unless, police officials introduce ruthless punishment culture for negligence in fulfilling responsibilities, these shortcut practices will continue in police services.
A series of discussions, workshops and reforms is being initiated to improve police performance but there is a chain of issues relating to police that puts a question mark on the performance of police officials from top to bottom.
On one side, if police has to ensure law and order, it also has to investigate criminal as well as all sorts of crime cases reported in the jurisdiction of a police station. Incompetent, unprofessional, poor investigative skills, scarcity of funds and misuse of power are those common accusations that are levelled on police but amidst all this criticism there is ‘meeting culture’ that is never raised as the main issue for damaging police working.
A police official from the rank of SHO (inspector) to inspector general of police (IGP) has to attend compulsory routine meetings with their respective high-ups.
In routine, sometimes an inspector (SHO) irrespective of crime cases in his jurisdiction has to attend three to four official meetings in a day ranging one with SDPO, second with zonal officer, third with SSP operations and fourth may be with any high-up of the area.
Similarly, the DPO also has to attend two such compulsory official meetings, including one with SP and second with SSP. Likewise, the SSP has to ensure his attendance before IG, DIG and AIG operations as a routine, while the IG has to appear compulsorily before courts and standing committees of the parliament.
The ‘meeting culture’ in the police department is one of the main reasons for poor police performance as they remained busy the whole day in official meetings with their respective high-ups which usually are held to discuss routine matters, irrespective of any agenda and goal.
These routine meetings mar performance of subordinates as they have no other option or excuse to remain absent from these meetings.
A workaholic police official, deputed as SHO in a police station of the federal capital, who really wants to fight against criminals, requesting anonymity, said that his seniors interrupt their working and call them on pretext of meetings in their offices with the sole objective to show their efficiency to the high-ups.
“On one hand, police officials have to appear before courts relating to their filed cases and on the other they have to ensure their attendance in these routine meetings. Attendance in such routine meetings means that one has to sacrifice the tasks of the day relating to investigation of the filed cases and other affairs of the police stations and routine visit of their police station’s jurisdictions”, the police official said.
The subordinates find it more convenient to satisfy his immediate senior officials and get relaxed after attending such fruitless meetings.
These meetings are not solution to rising crime problem. The high officials can update them on any crime investigation on phone instead of calling the subordinates to their offices. To keep check on performance of subordinates, the deadline culture can be introduced to resolve cases on priority basis and it will create not only competent attitude within police force but also responsibility with the job.
There is lack of a systematic mechanism in the police department to punish the police officers for negligence in their responsibilities. The department should initiate cohesive approach to redress loopholes present in police service and officials responsible for any negligence should be held accountable for their poor performance through introducing punishments like reducing their service tenures and deputing them on lower ranks for their negligence in performing their responsibilities.
No doubt departmental meetings are crucial for improvement of the department, therefore, all such inter-departmental meetings should be held on monthly basis to assuage the performance of different police stations and official deputed there instead of calling subordinates on a daily basis to impress respective seniors on their activeness.