From Adjusting to Rebuilding Police Institutions

Abstract

Abstract:This article is intended for academics, think tanks and practitioners dealing with modem policing. The scope of the article is intentionally wide, and gives a general overview of issues involved, with minor adjustments, up to large-scale reestablishment of police institutions. The author aims to provide useful guidance to those who are in charge of conducting any police capacity building related activities. No matter the scale of the envisaged change, general background knowledge on police is essential in order to understand the implications of change.Keywords: Police reform, capacity building, law enforcement, police organizationEverything is subject to change; many philosophies describe very well the dynamic nature of society. However, not only societies undergo change, but all its sub-elements, including the police. To provide a safe and secure environment the police should also observe, learn and adapt. Adaptation is a frequently observed institutional reaction but it does not go beyond a certain scale. If we would set up a scale measuring change as it occurs in police institutions beyond a regularly occurring adaptation, the first mark would be Adjust, the second Reform and the third Rebuild. In this regard, adjusting is more than a minor correction, may not take place often and, in an idealistic situation, one can observe such actions not more than once every few years. This activity is internally conducted by top professional police leaders who are in charge of planning, approving and executing. For instance, this may involve establishing a new team or a new unit within a department. In case of adjustment, there is no shocking or provoking event -1 would argue that this is part of the organic institutional refreshing mechanism.Reform, as next on the scale, is a much larger action, occurring perhaps just once in a decade. One of the significant differences in comparison with the adjustment phase is that police reform may be politically led. Sometimes it is also related to a change in po* -litical administration. It could also be an institutional reaction to a shocking event after a long time ignored adjustment or a significant modernization meant to provide institu-tional solutions to various internal and external security related challenges. In this category, the change is well pronounced, supposedly well communicated and should aim for the mid to long-term. For instance, under police reform many modem police witnessed the establishment of a new (elite) police service in charge of organized crime, counterterrorism, high-profile crimes, etc. However, the scope of reform may likely go beyond and can even include merging police services into one single service, as was the case in Luxemburg (2000), Belgium (2001) and Austria (2005) when the former national gendarmerie service was merged into one single police service. Police reform requires thorough governmental planning, parliamentarian oversight and the adoption of a new police law. In some cases, such police reform occurs hand in hand with larger sectorial reforms either in tandem with the security sector or with the rule of law sector.The rebuilding of a police service is inherently very different. Rebuilding almost always follows a war (armed) crisis or a total collapse and disintegration of the police institution. Unfortunately, there are several recent examples of this, many, but not exclusively, on the African continent. We could cite significant rebuilding case studies from West Africa, the most advanced and successful of which occurred in Sierra Leone. In all cases the state authority was not and could not be the driving engine of police rebuilding; rather, there was always the need for a strong, external partner to guide, foster and assist the host nation throughout the process. That could be based on bilateral or multilateral work partnering with states, as was the case with the generation of the new Palestine Police Service. …