Policing Organised Crime: A Paradox of Transition?

Abstract

CEE countries in transition have supposedly succeeded in re-establishing their police forces in line with ideals of ‘democratic policing’ or are in the process of doing so. It is also widely recognised that crime numbers surged in CEE countries after the break-up of socialist regimes. This chapter aims to analyse how the standards of democratic policing stood up to the pressures brought by this rise in crime, in particular in organised crime. Democratic policing stands in opposition to policing in a totalitarian, socialist country. Its core values are: serving civil society, transparency, accountability, integrity management, representativeness, the (relative) autonomy of the police organisation and professionalism. CEE countries—some due to notable influence from abroad—took steps both towards instituting new organisational measures for fighting organised crime and securing adequate special, covert powers of investigation. How do the measures necessary to challenge organised crime stand up to the principles of democratic policing, in particular those of decentralisation, (judicial) accountability and transparency? At face value, it appears that combating organised crime requires the very same methods commonly used by pre-1989 regimes to uphold the pre-transition political system. This chapter provides a comparative overview of police reforms in selected CEE countries, with special emphasis on special investigative and other measures aimed at combating organised crime. A casestudy attempts to assess the struggle to secure legitimacy for such policing methods in a new political order.