Why our police can't do what the 'Bobbies' can?

Exhortations to our policemen and women to do their job in an upright manner without fear and favour have never been wanting irrespective of the colour and complexion of the establishment and other do-gooders. With all the eloquence and concern at their command, reference has been made by our guardians to the sterling performance of the London Metropolitan Police (fondly called 'Bobbies' in remembrance of Sir Robert Peel, the founder of London Metropolitan Police) for emulation and endearment to the community. One would very surely get moved upon hearing the virtues of the 'Bobbies', and wish if only our folks spoke and behaved the same way.
Under a scenario as above, it would only be proper to take a look into the history and working of London Metropolitan Police. Upon scrutiny one would find that the British tradition of government has evolved into an overriding belief in the value of a liberal democracy based on the rule of law. In Britain the guiding principle has been that if the rule of law is to be maintained, then the laws must be enforced comprehensively, impartially, and effectively. The official and legitimate law enforcement agency is the police force. The primary role of the police is therefore to enforce the law, at the implicit wish of society, so as to make legitimate government effective.
The British tradition of policing is to provide a service, as well as to enforce the law. The norms of the modern police service in London and elsewhere in UK were, broadly speaking, that the police force should be a body of citizens in uniform, exercising their right to make arrests, but so far as possible non-military in appearance, local in their origins, and accountable for their actions. The assumption was that the majority of citizens would obey the majority of laws for the majority of the time, and that the police would be operating as far as possible by consent and not by force.
The above-mentioned consent was bestowed on the police by the formal democratic process which had led to their creation; but secondary and more importantly, by the renewable and continual consent which they gained by the way they went about their duties. Police conduct had been that of which a reasonable person would approve, 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 new police constable was invariably accountable to the law.
The objectives of the London Metropolitan Police as of 1829 are worth reproducing in full for obvious reasons of comparison.
"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime; the next, that of the detection and apprehension of offenders when crime is committed. To these ends, all the efforts of the police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquility and the absence of crime will alone prove whether the efforts of the police have been successful, and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained.
Every member of the force must remember that his duty is to protect and help members of the public, no less than to apprehend guilty persons. Consequently, whilst prompt to prevent crime and arrest criminals, he must look upon himself as the servant and guardian of the general public and treat all law-abiding citizens, irrespective of their social position with unfailing patience, courtesy, and good humour".
From the above it is clear that the British tradition of policing emphasises policing by consent; and it is seen as a legitimate and valuable task that the police should provide a service as well as acting as a force. Now let us compare this with our situation as narrated below.
Our police force is nationally organized. Every effort is made to ensure that local ties are neither sustained nor 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 and conspicuously armed. There is an officer class, chosen often for their political background and loyalty as their officer-like qualities.
Further the first purpose of our para-military police force is to support the State; and 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 ordinary criminal. Under this system it is a legitimate and indeed 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.
Ours is clearly a force, and not a service. It rules by authority and not consent. As in an army, policemen in this force are accountable to their superiors, rather than public opinion or the law. Their duties are tabulated for them, and there is little or no room for discretion.
Clearly, the British tradition of policing is very different from this; and clearly, a para-military police force would dictate a very different relationship between police and society.
The question that can be asked is if the police of Bangladesh could be turned into a symbol of human security without organizationally gearing it towards that end? Is it possible to ensure operational neutrality of police? How can police be made effectively accountable? Can it be transformed into an instrument of law? What steps are needed to insulate the police from partisan political control? Is it possible that the empty political rhetoric of ensuring fair, just and humane dispensation at police stations becomes a reality? What should be done to raise the integrity levels of police? These are some of the critical questions that underpin the vexed police reform debate in Bangladesh.
If the police forces of Bangladesh are to achieve all these, its first order of business is the enactment of a new Police Act to replace the present archaic legislation enacted in 1861. As it is, the act is weak in almost all the parameters that must govern democratic police legislation.
Our politicians betray a pathetic lack of appreciation of the imperative that the foundation of a civilized society depends upon the effective and impartial working of some corrective institutions, prominent among which is the public service. They appear to be perilously oblivious to the reality that the regulatory outfit of police must be demonstrably impartial to ensure public confidence in the governance ability of the ruling class.
The ruling parties in their misplaced exuberance forget that the police was the dominant visible symbol of repressive imperial alien power and that de-colonization requires large-scale behavioural and attitudinal changes of the political masters and the public servants belonging to this vital organ of the state.
Thus while admonitions from the pulpit come in plenty for rational behaviour on the part of enforcement officials, in reality, unhealthy pressures are regularly exerted to carry out the wishes of the ruling coterie in the most expeditious manner. It is the continuance of such regressive mentality that has brought us to the present lamentable scenario wherein the police outfit is often described as a lackey of the political government. Nothing could be more sad and frustrating than that.
If we want to get out of the aforementioned undesirable situation, we have to take quick action to repair our badly bruised democratic credentials. First of all, the police needs to be insulated from political executive and other interferences in promotions, postings and security of tenure. The people must not get an impression that the investigation agencies are very efficient while taking the required action against those not in power and that as against those in power, their edge is blunted.
If police act impartially, credibility would be restored to the investigative authorities. This is very important because as long as the impression persists that a policeman is not an unbiased friend of people, the concept of an orderly society would not be achieved.
The late Robert F. Kennedy once said: "Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves." What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.