The chain of command issue

THE chain of command question in public service, particularly in law enforcement organisation, has once again attracted media attention. Some observers have commented that the virus of politicisation has been eating away at the vitals of police administration. On the subject of police professionalism some observers have taken issue with the politicians' attitudes that have allegedly resulted in the blurring of distinction between the party and the government and also between the government and the State.

The above, without doubt, make disturbing reading but in the fitness of things should perhaps compel concerned citizens to introspect and look back with a view to getting a clear insight into this serious public issue. Looking back, one would see that our colonial masters, the British, had no incentive to reform the system. Pakistanis who followed were 'no more than faithful' to their predecessors and neglected police reforms.

When seen in some historical perspective one would find that the inherited colonial system has been expanded and strengthened and largely continues to perform its repressive role and political surveillance functions at the cost of its proper role. A deeper look would reveal that internal incentives do not exist in desired manner to professionalise the service.

Ground realities indicate that there do not exist sufficient safeguards to insulate the police from group conflicts in society and enable it to act in a non-partisan manner. Cynics say that politicians do not want to professionalise the service because control over it is central to political conflict in a sharply polarised society. It would not be an exaggeration to say that policing in all countries is politically partisan to an extent; and that portraying the police in liberal states as neutral arbiters in public order situations could be misleading.

The interesting phenomenon is that Bangladeshi state, which was the product of a bloody freedom struggle, adopted a written, liberal democratic constitution but retained the colonial administrative, police and judicial structures without recasting them to meet the changed situation.

Historically speaking, the British, an alien element, were interested in maintaining imperial control for surplus extraction. They needed to have information on the moods and opinions of the public and on the possibilities of agrarian and industrial unrest. By mid 1930s police coercion became a vital instrument of state policy.

To the British, crime and politics were inseparable; defiance of state authority was a serious crime and a prelude to rebellion; political resistance was a crime or a likely occasion for crime.

The resources and skills developed in combating the former were freely deployed in defeating the latter. It is, thus very significant to appreciate the political purposes behind the origin of our police system.

Some cynics say that politicisation of the police is the price for the democratic functioning of the country. The prevalent wisdom tends to put all the blame on the political class, ignoring the negative role of the police leadership.

The harsh reality is that we have failed to introduce administrative changes in tune with the provisions of our Republican constitution. The police have remained largely distant from the people and disliked as before.

The Police Act of 1861, despite its preamble, prioritises collection and communication of intelligence affecting the public peace. The prevention and detection of crime is included in the duties of the police only in Section 23 of the Act.

A considered view is that political leaders and other government functionaries should be ready to proactively give up their long-held powers of 'superintendence' over the police in favour of apolitical public safety commissions charged with the responsibility of designing and implementing measures necessary to ensure political neutrality of police operations.

There is no denying that in a democracy police could not be wholly autonomous and political intervention is both inevitable and necessary to some extent. Therefore, there is a need to specify areas where government interference is justified and others where it is not.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.