Evolving patterns in the police systems of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Netherlands and England & Wales.
| Verfasser | van Sluis, Arie |
1 Introduction
The previous articles described police systems and reforms implemented in three countries. In this final article, we explore the similarities and differences in the police systems of these three countries, focusing specifically on the organization of the police forces and their governance systems. While we expect all police systems to have multiple levels, they will probably differ in their organization, their relationship with their political and administrative environments, and how they are influenced by polity, tradition and the prevailing political culture.
Section 2 examines what the starting point for police reforms is and how the shifts brought about by successive police reforms can be assessed. In Section 3, we ask if there is a common pattern in the way these four police systems have evolved, or whether it is more appropriate to talk of a hodgepodge of developments. In particular, we are interested in any centralizing or decentralizing tendencies that have occurred and their impact on the governance of the police and the democratic accountability of the police.
Another relevant subject for comparison is the role of innovations in police work. Which police innovations have taken place and to what extent have they had an impact on the police system? Are these innovations common to all three countries? In Section 4, we will look at shifts in policing and in police work and ask whether there is any correlation between the increase in police professionalism and the evolution of police systems.
Section 5 then focuses on the dynamics of police reform. Have police reforms across the four countries followed the same template, and if not, what are the consequences for the police system? Another relevant question is how the balance between continuity and change is determined (Section 5).
We end our paper in Section 6 by discussing our expectations of the future of police systems in the three countries and by raising the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to assume the existence of a common Western European developmental path for police systems.
2 The organization of the police
A common feature of police systems in established democratic countries (including those discussed here) is the existence of checks and balances that spread authority and accountability over multiple arms. Such a system reflects the need for protection against the police. Together with the multiplicity of the police task, it gives the police force a multi-level character involving many political-administrative levels.
Nonetheless, institutional arrangements, the number of organizational levels, and the systems of governance can vary significantly. While police systems are organized predominantly on a national scale in some countries, other countries use more regional and local organizational forms, depending on the system of democratic accountability.
We can locate the three police systems discussed here on a continuum from predominantly local to predominantly national, or from decentralized to centralized. In The Netherlands, regional police forces are spread across 25 police regions and a national police force serves to support the regional forces. While there are no administrative regions, political control is exerted at the local and national levels. The Dutch police system has a democratic deficit in this respect.
Germany organizes its police forces on a state level and the state parliaments are important in steering and controlling the state-level police. The German federal police operate on a national level, and a number of local police forces have been set up. State parliaments exercise democratic control. Local boards serve as mediators between the police and the council, trying to both control the police and put them in touch with local safety and security concerns. There are a number of provincial police forces in England & Wales. However, national police bodies have also been gradually established and political control is held by the national parliament.
If Belgium and Denmark were included in our ranking exercise, Belgium would have the most locally-oriented police system, followed by the Netherland and England & Wales. The police force in Belgium is integrated on both the local and federal levels, and political control is exerted at both levels.
Of all the countries studied here, Denmark has the most nationally-oriented police system and Germany's is the most state-controlled. In Denmark, the Minister of Justice, not the Minister of the Interior, is in charge of the police and is accountable to the national parliament. Nonetheless, a good degree of democratic control exists at the local level.
Despite these differences, the countries are similar in that they each have a specific mix of national and local power bases that is necessary for balance. Such a mix is important as an exclusively national orientation is thought to lead to an authoritarian, repressive form of police, while local policing is thought to be more sensitive to local needs and wants. Boek (1999) makes a distinction between two kinds of policing: what he calls general policing and local policing. The distinction is interesting because it illuminates the dilemma that police typically face. In the first kind of policing, the police force is the strong arm of power, usually associated with a strong, central, almost autocratic government. In the second kind of policing, the use of force is traded in for persuasion. Officers are active on the ground and see it as their role to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens in the local community.
Both functions have their pro and con's. Being close to people living in the neighbourhood or the village, local police have the ability to prevent or solve problems. However, this close association with the local community is not without risk. With the police act like citizens in uniform, and have close ties with other citizens, it is possible that they will lose their objectivity and begin to accept the unacceptable. In this context, it is difficult for the local police to protect the rule of law against unreasonable individuals who seek to place themselves outside the realm of the Rechtsstaat.
The general police have the power of force. Such power can easily be wielded or simply threatened when all other means fail. However, the threat of force quickly becomes a threat to the very liberty of citizens. Also, the use of force tends to escalate very quickly. This is especially likely when the police officers lack an understanding of local customs and circumstances. Body Gendrot (2008) makes clear that the French police were literary out of place in the banlieues of Paris. They were 'canned police', packed in their cars, without contact with the people in these dreadful neighbourhoods. Strong arm tactics, including the use of violent force became a key part of their professional philosophy. Not surprisingly, the French police became more and more violent and often employed strong-arm technique that solved very little. Problems were enlarged, especially that between the police force and the minister of Home Affairs who paid little attention to societal problems, preferring instead to focus on his image as a strong public leader.
Some police systems are more local, others more national-oriented. There does not appear to be a "one size fits all" model and differences between the practices of each country do not imply differences in quality or effectiveness. History, traditions, and, of course, the political system play an important role in determining the shape of the police system. According to Bayley (1985), democracy is clearly compatible with a variety of control strategies. Praun (2007, p. 72) supports this view by saying that "there is no such thing as a genuine democratic police structure". Thus, there seems to be room for a diversity of police systems that comply with the demands of a democratic constitutional state.
3 Shifts in police governance
Police reform is often associated with lively debates over 'good governance'. In most police systems, there is a tug-of-war between local and national control. The centralization and decentralization of police power is a key factor in the debate and is a key issue in many police reforms. Often, actors from outside the inner circle of the "usual suspects" get involved in debates over the police system. This may be seen as positive from the point of view of democracy and the societal control of the police as it incorporates important checks and balances. However, unending debates over the control of police forces can be symptomatic of decreasing confidence and can erode the legitimacy of the existing police system. This would lead to a more radical agenda for the "institutional redesign" of the police system.
Increasing centralization in the authority over the police
We see in The Netherlands and in England & Wales an increasing centralization of the government's control over the police. This centralization is at the detriment of local influence in policy-making. Such local control is important in areas such as crime-fighting, as it counters efforts to implement more repressive and punitive strategies at the national level. Central steering, in most cases by the national government, has become the dominant trend alongside an increasing role of inspections. In England & Wales, the Home Office has become even more important in recent years. It was the instigator of efforts to increase police performance and to introduce performance management.
In The Netherlands, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, inspired by the role of the Home Office in England & Wales, has tried to strengthen his grip on (regional) police forces. He has a growing influence in the steering and control, not only of the police, but also of national public safety policy as a whole (compare van Sluis et. al., 2008). In the German state of North...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO ANCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
