Of myopic law enforcement

MULTIPLE abductions followed by grisly murders committed allegedly with the help of elite law enforcement outfit have made many citizens worried and jittery. Responsible individuals including nationally important public leaders have demanded the disbandment of the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab), holding the organisation responsible for the serious malfeasance of a few key officials. In a charged situation nobody is in a mood to study the objective conditions that are causing worrisome deviance. However, have not murders of publicly important persons occurred in the preceding years? And have not we chosen to forget the death episode without displaying the resolve to effectively combat the menace?
Examination and scrutiny would reveal that violent incidents that include murder of politicians are outcomes in a society marked by deep polarisation, weak institutions and chronic poverty. The quantity and quality of violence characterising Bangladeshi society at all levels today has an irreducibly political context. Overt and visible violence co-exists with invisible violence that destroys the identity of human beings. The visible violence, being situational and physical, can be dealt with through law and order solutions. The invisible violence being structural and requiring radical solutions, however, flows into and determines physical violence in a bipolar interaction.
Bangladesh today is witnessing the politics of violence, which means resorting to physical violence to promote a political objective, as well as the violence of politics built into the institutionalised structure of politics.
The relationship between violence and power has to be noted. Though violence in society is perceived as a breach of law, in our situation, often the law itself becomes equally violent and has a debilitating impact because of its systematic ruthlessness backed by official sanction.
Cynical observers of our social scene are of the distressing view that there is a functional utility of violence for politicians. Such opinions point an accusing finger towards the suspected state complicity in the perpetration of organised acts of violence and the inordinate delays in securing justice for the victims. This delay is alarming as it sends a clear message to potential delinquents that no harm will come to them in the event of repeated performances of criminal activities.
In Bangladesh, we need to seriously acknowledge the significance of authoritative approval or condoning of violence because such action is construed as social approval. The so-called political circumstances have often obstructed accountability of the culpable individuals. There is good reason to doubt that considerable number of officials abnegated their responsibility to protect all citizens regardless of their identity.
The disturbing reality in Bangladesh is that with the change of political regime the faces of the criminals and their sources of patronage change. At times the same criminals who had terrorised the community under the patronage of the outgoing ruling party continued their depredations with a renewed mandate from the incumbent ruling party.
Quite often, the disconcerting socio-political reality is that the source of deterioration in crime and order situations originated in the continuing patronage of criminals and bullies by the incumbent ruling party. Practically, what the public see is the end result of cumulative process of patronised crime, practiced over successive regimes.
The premonition is that if criminals continue to enjoy immunity from law enforcement over successive administrations then we have a systemic crisis at hand, and a serious one at that. The manifestation of that crisis relates to the allegation of selective law enforcement scenario wherein state functionaries hesitate to enforce the law, suo moto.
The question is: have hardened criminals joined political parties in order to practice their trade with impunity? Are ranks of political parties polluted with criminals and shady elements that are considered indispensable resource for furthering political and commercial fortunes of the political patrons? Is selective law enforcement driving some officials to abuse the system for their own advantage?
The suspicion is that the systemic deficiency is located within the political parties and machinery of law enforcement. The desired corrective actions cannot be unilaterally taken by the ruling party and quite distinctly calls for a bipartisan approach with active involvement of the civil society. Demobilisation of criminal elements by the ruling party demands a reciprocal response from the political opponents. The remedy lies in cleaning our politics through its decriminalisation, backed by the de-politicisation of law enforcement as well as the administration.
It is pertinent to note that we have attached disproportionate importance to the so-called maintenance of public order at the expense of overlooking crime prevention and scientific investigation. Thus we see more personnel for political intelligence collection, security of VIPs including foreign diplomats, riot police establishment and the so-called elite units. Capital investments for public order situation have been accorded priority over expenditures for improving scientific skills of the investigator. The armorued car has been more important than the forensic laboratory.
In a scenario as above, professionals and politicians have to share the blame, but perhaps politicians are to blame more. This is so because enforcement leadership had to satisfy the political boss's requirement. To the political leadership the political opposition is the graver threat and, as such, greater resources have to be deployed to counter that scourge. The political executive is the authority and he has the last say.
Now may be the time when we must know why investigative efficiency of the police has deteriorated over the years and whether such efficiency can be regained in isolation without setting the expected organisational goal of the police. It may also be appropriate now to know the pattern of resource allocation for increasing the professional competence of investigative outfits. We may have to know if there is a lack of proper emphasis in fixing priorities and deciding the core functions of police in a pluralist society like ours.
Finally, howsoever facile the sound bites of the politicians may appear, we have to remember that we cannot defend the liberal principles of a democratic society by cultivating and encouraging a medieval prejudice. Therefore, a law enforcement outfit which takes pride in its being an elitist organisation cannot be irreverent to the rule of law.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.