What is this ‘police state’ so universally deprecated, feared and opposed? Clearly, it does not mean a state with police in it, as almost all of us recognise the importance of their service to preserve the peace.
In the term ‘police state’, emphasis must first be placed on the second word, as it occurs where the state causes the conditions to exist, where there is repressive ruling class, control by extra-curial, and arbitrary exercise of power by the national security forces. Sometimes there might be an element of secrecy and often there is rampant impunity. As with all things, there are degrees or stages in this retreat from the rule of law. The police state is a descent as much as a destination.
All over this American hemisphere, people are calling for more accountable, less oppressive policing. One answer to halt the devolution to the police state is to increase democratic civilian control of police forces. In a democratic society, there must be community-based policing.
The birth of modern policing in the English-speaking world is normally attributed to Sir Robert Peel, who, as British home secretary in 1829, established a professional police force for metropolitan London. Sir Robert’s bobbies were employed to give full-time service to preserving the Queen’s peace and to ‘cop’ (a verb meaning to apprehend) offenders. Given the previous arrangements, it would seem that there would be little opposition to these measures.
Previously, the maintenance of law and order largely fell to the ordinary citizen. Each citizen was obliged to keep the peace, and when the hue and cry was raised or the posse comitatus formed to apprehend offenders and bring them to justice. The posse of western lore may come to mind.
Next, justices of the peace (JPs) appointed men from the community to serve as constables, watchmen, or beadles. From Shakespeare’s Dogberry to Sweeney Todd’s Beadle Bamford, these amateurs were often portrayed as incompetent or corrupt. Certainly, the bobbies, as able and dedicated men who benefited from bespoke training, would be an improvement on these part-timers.
But there were always misgivings about a full-time police force. The community-controlled model had the advantages of having the supervision of the constable by the very persons who experienced his work. It was feared that the police force would replace community-based justice with state oppression. Keeping order would be more important than fostering justice; protecting the ruling classes the mission rather than equal treatment; policing for totalitarianism rather than for democracy.
To appease these fears, the new Metropolitan Force was to be based upon policing by consent of the citizen nicely encapsulated in nine Peelian Principles. Principle 2 recognises that the police cannot properly function without public approval and respect. Principle 5 states that the police must not pander to public opinion but demonstrate their professionalism by courtesy and impartiality. Principle 6 implores that physical force be proportionate. Principle 8 warns against extra-judicial punishment. Principle 7 poetically urges maintaining old traditions: “… The police are the public and the public are the police … .”
The Jamaica Constabulary Force and many police forces in the Americas, although modelled on Peel’s force, have too often failed to follow these principles, betraying the absence of democratic civilian control. Following Emancipation, police forces were often created as tools for control. In the United States, many police forces arose from the antebellum slave patrols. In Jamaica, our police force followed the 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion, seeking to quell the fear that Jamaica would follow Haiti into rebellion.
The police state becomes particularly virulent where the police openly resist governmental control. This development could come from the belief of some members, in breach of Principle 5, that they can exploit their important social role. For example, a local policeman recently called upon his colleagues to use their political power to seek the reversal of the convictions of their colleagues! There was no official rebuke.
Today, there is much talk of reforming the Constabulary Force Act. I urge that such reforms focus on increasing civilian control of our police.
Under the current arrangements, one feature of civilian control is the power of the minister of national security to make rules for the force. Perhaps the law should be changed requiring parliamentary approval for ministerial rules. No one wants a police force under partisan control. It is not for the minister to say who should be arrested or which premises must be searched. But, in a democracy, it is through our elected representatives that we can exercise control over public institutions by oversight and legislation.
One of the two constant issues for Jamaica’s police is their use of force. Sadly, ministers of national security have not seen fit to promulgate comprehensive rules for the use of force. In this regard, the public is left to the policies made by the various commissioners. Such policies are like rules written in pencil decorating filing cabinets. They are as easily changed, as they are made and largely unknown to the public.
Another area of civilian control is the Police Service Commission (PSC). Modelled on former British systems, the members are responsible to make recommendations for promotions and discipline for senior police officers. It is no derision of the fine and able persons who have served on the PSC to say that the organisation is in need of reform. The PSC is relatively small, having four members appointed by the governor general, on the recommendation of the prime minister after consultation with the leader of the Opposition. Insufficient is said of qualifications for membership. How many women sit on the PSC? Does the PSC membership cover the five police areas? The PSC seems also to largely rely on reports from the commissioner of police, weakening the effectiveness of its review.
The British have reformed their arrangements. First, they provided for full-time police authorities to review and oversee the local police. Recently they have improved on these arrangements by providing for the election of civilians to ensure that their local police forces are efficient and effective. This includes the hiring and firing of the chief constable (the head of the local force), reviewing and giving suggestions for the area’s crime plan, reviewing policing decisions, and convening public meetings on the chief constable’s reports.
While whole-scale adoption may not be appropriate, the United Kingdom’s reforms point us in the right direction. The PSC must be expanded to include parish boards with particular responsibility to oversee the police divisional and area commanders. Membership can come from JPs and other community leaders appointed by the custos, and from parish councillors. The local boards must be staffed and empowered to obtain relevant information and to receive reports from other bodies and persons.
The national board would benefit from the head of each parish board, along with other persons whose demographics reflect sex and age diversity, as well as with qualifications and experience in justice, human rights, and public-sector management.
With this reform, members of the community who personally experience the work of the police will have oversight and some measure of control. In this way, policing will truly be with consent and in the public interest.
Terrence F. Williams is the commissioner of INDECOM.
