|
The Need for Community Policing
INTRODUCTION
The increased levels of crime and violence and other demands for police services are placing considerable strain on the community and the police itself. The growing frustration in the community about crime, violence and associated problems puts additional pressures on the police, and has focused attention on the inadequacies of the criminal justice system as a response to crime. Members of the police tend to become discouraged and cynical about the inability of the criminal justice system to protect communities adequately from the ravages of crime yet, more often than not, they cling to inefficient and ineffective methods of providing police services which only exacerbate the problem.
It is shocking to see hundreds of people killed, raped and others robbed of their belongings in the 'new South Africa'. After all, April 27 should have lessened all this suffering. South Africa is a democratic country, with a democratic Interim Constitution, and a justifiable Bill of Rights, which guarantees and protects the rights of all the citizens. However, there are shocking figures which are reflected in many research findings since the Government of National Unity came into being:
- Only one third (33%) of the total number of crimes committed is reported to the police. Many go unreported because communities have no confidence in the police or they believe that the police cannot do anything about them.
- Of those arrested, charged and convicted, fewer than 10% are actually incarcerated, yet prisons everywhere are seriously overcrowded.
- The majority of criminal acts are committed by a relatively small proportion of the members of society - repeat offenders who continually victimise people because the criminal justice system has failed to rehabilitate them.
- The role and responsibilities of the police services have remained largely unchanged since the accession of the new Government of National Unity, in the eyes of the majority. Indeed, many basic methods, procedures and structures remain much the same.
- More than 150 policemen have been killed country-wide since the new government came to power.
- The police remain isolated from the community they are trying to protect. As a result, policing has remained impersonal and the police are still viewed as apart from, rather than as part of, the community.
Against this backdrop it is imperative to begin examining the way in which the police services are organised, how they operate, and ways in which they could become more effective and efficient in dealing with the safety and security of the community. The experiences of other countries have indicated that:
- the police cannot deal with crime and violence alone. Crime and violence are complex social problems that require the involvement of the whole community for successful resolution. Proactive prevention of crime and violence is a much more sensible approach given the dismal record of reactive, incidence-driven policing.
- The successful resolution of crime and violence is a team effort. It requires tremendous co-ordination, co-operation and communication from the outset and it must involve victims, witnesses and other resources within the community.
WHAT IS COMMUNITY POLICING?
These experiences of other countries have led to the emergence of community policing, as a new philosophy of police services, that causes changes in the way police work is done. Community policing is a system, a style and method of providing police service and managing the police organisation. In reality, it involves long-term institutional change and not only a change in name. It acknowledges that conventional models of security policy were mainly concerned with protecting the security of the state. These conventional models ignored the underlying reasons for conflict and failed to take into account the security of the people. History has shown that state security always amounts to little other than regime security, and that the security of the state does not necessarily mean the security of the people.
IS COMMUN ITY POLICING A WASTE OF RESOURCES?
Most people opposing community policing do so on the grounds that it is a waste of resources. They fail to acknowledge that community policing is grounded on the philosophy which recognises the interdependence and shared responsibility of the police and the community. In fact, community policing was designed to deal with an ever-increasing workload on existing resources. The concept acknowledges the absence of additional resources. It is a method of policing which encourages a partnership that identifies community safety issues, determines resources, and applies innovative strategies designed to create and sustain healthy and peaceful neighbourhoods.
Community policing is founded on the belief that conventional policing has not altogether worked. With its much broader focus on problem-identification and analysis and systematic problem-solving techniques, coupled with strong partnerships with the entire community, more effective and efficient long-term solutions to problems of persistent crime and violence can be found.
However, it is important to note that community policing is not a panacea for all the problems in law enforcement. The reform of the police institution is one of the key challenges facing South Africans. While it is acknowledged that the process of police reform will be lengthy and difficult, it is crucial to the long-term stability of the country. The process of community policing involves examining what the police force does, why it does it, how it does it, and whether it makes sense to continue policing, given the limited successes of the past.
This thorough examination involves management and operational practices, decision-making processes, internal and external relationships, the identification of other resources available to deal with problems in the community and many other aspects. The results of this examination may be used to redefine and reshape the role and responsibilities of police officers, to restructure the organisation and develop a new way of thinking about how police service should be delivered to the community.
HOW DIFFERENT IS COMMUNITY POLICING?
Many people ask how community policing is different from conventional policing, given that it uses the same people, machinery and methods of operation. It is, therefore, necessary to compare the two methods of policing.
In conventional policing, the police force is generally, if not always, the focus of efforts to fight crime and violence. It is usually driven by incidents that are reported to it and is primarily reactive in nature, or it simply responds after the incidents have occurred. The information used by the police is generally limited and comes invariably from the victims, witnesses and other police sources. The conventional police organisation is managed in a top-down manner with decision-making focused at the top of the organisation. The service is highly centralised and, depending on size, may have one or more large sub-station operations.
The police then, more often than not, deal with the symptoms, rather than the underlying conditions that allow problems to persist. Research has shown that these symptoms manifest themselves in repetitive criminal incidents, or by calls for service at the same place involving, more often than not, the same people time and again. As a result, policemen and policewomen become frustrated and often develop a feeling that there are no solutions to these problems. The level of confidence, trust and support for the police frequently suffers in this environment.
In community policing, the entire community, other government organisations, the private sector, social service institutions and NGOs are the focus of efforts to combat crime and violence. The police are linked to the community through the development of structured and working partnerships. Regular face-to-face contact between the police and the community is a priority and is reflected in the local police-community consultative forums. Alternative patrol strategies to accomplish these objectives are used, including increased use of foot-patrols, mounted and bicycle-mounted patrols and, to a lesser extent, a combination of driving and walking patrols. In other words, by 'personalising' policing, the groundwork is laid for positive working partnerships to deal with the problems of crime and violence. The whole effort of the police and community is directed toward identification and analysis of problems, and systematic problem-solving methods involving more resources than the police have traditionally used. The strategy of the police is proactive in nature; they are not driven by incidents. The information made available to the police is generated from a much broader base which includes the police-community consultative forums.
Community policing implies that the solution to problems of crime and violence goes beyond invoking the criminal justice process. Community policing uses a variety of public, private and community-based organisations to resolve problems. The measurement of performance and success in community policing is based on the results achieved against specific objectives developed in the problem-solving process. The police organisation is managed in a bottom-to-top fashion (through police-community consultative forums) with expanded decision-making roles for police officials and community members who are closest to the problems and who generally have the best information which can be used in formulating solutions. Community policing is characterised by a much greater degree of flexibility and risk-taking than is usual in a traditional police management environment. As a result, common sense usually prevails over bureaucracy. In contrast to the centralised nature of traditional policing, several small and fairly inexpensive police-community consultative forums may be utilised.
STRATEGIES USED IN COMMUNITYU POLICING
In order for community policing to become a reality, certain strategies need to be employed. There are five basic strategies in community policing, which are aimed at ensuring community involvement in all aspects of policing.
- The establishment of community consultative forums at a local level, which are aimed at establishing equal relations with all sectors of the community with a view to providing input into the management of community policing. These consultative forums are only one aspect of community policing, however, and their existence is not the sole requirement for community policing.
- The reorganisation of the local police organisation is necessary to facilitate problem-solving and take into account local sensitivities, as well as address issues of equality within the police service. This means that enormous internal organisational changes are required in the present police structure before it can begin to deliver the kind of service which is congruent with community policing. For instance, local commanders must have unquestionable control over their local areas - outside units such as Internal Stability Unit or Murder and Robbery Squad may not override their authority. The reorganisation also has important implications in respect of racism and sexism within the police service. The police force cannot deliver a fair and equitable service to the community unless it has fairness and equity established within its own organisation. In the short-term, at least, this remains one of the most significant obstacles to realising true community policing in South Africa.
- It is necessary to integrate the philosophy of community policing, and the information derived from it, into all aspects of police work. To have one division of the police service which attempts to create community policing is, therefore, a recipe for failure. The ethos of community policing has to pervade every aspect of the police service.
- The development of special programmes to serve the needs of marginalised and special interest groups in the community. The first duty of the police is to serve the most vulnerable groups in society. In the broad South African context, this means that special attention needs to be paid to the delivery of police services in black communities, which have been historically disadvantaged. It also means that special attention has to be paid to the protection of women, children and the elderly.
- The assignment of police personnel to relatively small geographic areas on a long-term basis, and the use of beat patrols in communities as a means of establishing contact with these communities. This means that police officers become specialists in a particular community, rather than in one technical aspect of police work - a policeman or policewoman becomes a specialist in the policing of Umlazi, for example, rather than in the policing of violent crimes. He or she gets to know an area and its people very well by patrolling it regularly.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICE-COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE FORUMS
Community policing cannot succeed unless all citizens have equal rights and equal access to the mechanisms which will enforce and protect their rights. This means that the police service must be accountable at a number of levels before the ideal of community policing can be realised.
There must be accountability at the political level too, whereby the Minister of Safety and Security can be held responsible for the actions of the police, and can be dismissed if he or she is not doing an adequate job. The same should apply at the levels of regional or local government, if police powers are located there.
There must be accountability to the law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The criminal justice system must not protect bad policemen in the same way it has in the past, and it must hold them publicly responsible for their actions.
There must be accountability to the internal professional code of the police - to a set of ethics and values which are common to the majority of South Africans, the values of a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society. There must be accountability within the police organisation, so that senior officers are held responsible for the actions of their juniors.
There must be accountability at the local community level too, so that the representatives of the local community can hold the police accountable for breaches of agreement, or for causing disorder in the community. This is not the same thing as consulting the community. Community accountability is a much more direct form of community supervision over the police. The local community needs to be satisfied with its police, and the local station commander, who lives in that community, needs to be able to live there comfortably with the consequences of his actions.
It is not assumed that community policing is the answer to all South Africa's problems of crime and social disorder, but their seriousness requires an approach which is focused on communities as the agents of change.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-CONSULTATIVE FORUMS?
In order to ensure both effectiveness and accountability, community input into police decision-making is crucial. The Constitution requires that the police consults communities at local level to determine policing priorities, and gives the community a role in evaluating and monitoring the police service. It is also crucial to have civilian input into policy-making at a regional and national level, in order to ensure that the police service becomes an open and transparent institution.
The Interim Constitution makes provision for the establishment of local community-police forums in every police station area. Section 221 of the Constitution describes the role of these forums as follows:
- To promote co-operation between the police and local communities.
- To monitor the effectiveness and the efficiency of the police service.
- To evaluate the provision of visible policing services.
- To request enquiries into local policing matters.
- To hold joint police-community workshops.
- To educate the communities about policing.
- To encourage joint patrols by the police and the community.
In addition, it is proposed that such forums should submit regular reports to the Member of the Provincial Executive responsible for the Provincial police service. This would ensure that the elected politician responsible for policing is kept informed of developments and views at grass roots level.
HOW SHOULD THESE FORUMS BE STRUCTURED?
The structures of these forums should not be rigid or fixed - they should allow for change as the need arises. In each local community, for example, Umlazi, there are different community-based organisations made up of sub-committees. These community-based organisations, together with the representatives from the South African Police Services (SAPS) (preferably station commanders) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) form the local forum of that specific community. However, it is important to note that each forum should be constituted around each police station. Therefore, the number of local forums in each community will be determined by the number of police stations in that community. Each executive committee of the local forum will then elect one delegate to the district forum, which comprised all the delegates from local forums in that district. The district forum will in turn elect one delegate to the provincial forum, which is the highest forum in the province.
KEY OBSTACLES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICTY POLICING
The establishment of community-police consultative forums does not necessarily mean that there is community policing. In fact, this is a journey that has just begun. There are four significant obstacles to the implementation of community policing in South Africa. Some critical elaboration of these follows:
- The organisational structure of the SAPS does not facilitate an easy interchange between the different divisions. Area specialisation, as opposed to task specialisation, is a key component of community policing and suggests that the current police structure of six parallel 'specialist divisions' is inappropriate for community policing. This problem has been demonstrated in relation to the Internal Stability Division (ISD). Good relations which exist between local station commanders and communities have often been ignored when the ISD has been sent into the area, leading to a breakdown in trust and co-operation. Local station commanders should have unquestionable command over their local areas; outside units such as ISD should not override their authority.
- The police generally understands police-community relations in the context of the 'authority' of the police. The police is perceived as the dominant partner in the police-community relationship, and the community is not seen as having the right and capability to co-determine the nature of policing. In some instances, the police believe that it is the community which needs to be taught about policing. The police should understand that both the police and the community need to be educated about the concept of community policing as a new philosophy of police services, in which the community is perceived as an equal partner in the relationship.
- Community policing requires that the police organisation is representative of the country's population. For people to believe that an institution is representative, certain conditions need to be met. The institution must look as representative as possible, with the senior echelons showing a more acceptable racial mix, rather than being drawn largely from the white community, and certain regional and local interests not dominant in its structure. In practical terms, the police organisation should strive to be as representative of the country's diverse gender, national, racial, ethnic, regional and linguistic groups as possible. A thorough process of organisational change must be embarked upon if the police service is to adapt itself to the needs and strategies of community policing. Such organisational changes should take place in the public eye and, preferably, with the active involvement of a number of outside experts and community representatives.
- Community policing generally conjures up visions of urban communities. However, South Africa is far more rural than the countries whose models we have drawn upon. Rural communities pose special and serious problems of their own in terms of any notion of community policing, although the general features of police organisation are similar to those elsewhere.
Tribal areas in the former homelands and elsewhere have their own special features. In many areas, tribal structures are breaking down and traditional authority is rapidly being challenged. Where these structures are still intact and legitimate, they often play a role not far different from community policing. Tribal police arrest perpetrators, provide the backup for tribal courts and inform chiefs or headmen about social disorder. These systems of indigenous policing offer some valuable insights. One of these is the emphasis on reparation as the mode of punishment, so that the victim is empowered through the process.
The future of these structures is uncertain. Modernisation is challenging tribal authority in parts of the country. In most cases, the main reason for its demise is the way in which apartheid policy co-opted the tribal system and thus discredited it. Its maintenance of order function has been a source of conflict because of the perceived lack of objectivity on the part of the chiefs. However, it seems that where tribal structures remain intact and continue to be broadly legitimate, the community aspects of tribal discipline should be built upon and worked with, rather than attempts made to impose new forms of community policing in their place.
The orientation of the police services in South Africa is of great significance as the country enters the final stages of a transition from authoritarian rule. As in other transitions of this nature, the realisation of democracy is scarcely possible if the police refuses to accept that it is subordinate and accountable to the civilian authority. It is also typical of such transitions that community policing is put under great pressure by the high levels of political instability.
CONCLUSION
Undoubtedly, South Africa's new found political maturity was born out of the empowerment which the democratic process gave to the broad mass of South Africans. Until April 27, these South Africans, without arms or institutional authority, had very little control over their political or social destinies.
However, on April 26, 27, and 28 they were able to supersede the traditional institutions of authority and make an indelible imprint on the South African political process.
The key to establishing long-term peace in South Africa will be to create effective mechanisms whereby the voters of April 27 can translate their commitment to democracy into a concrete assertion of control over their day-to-day lives. Community policing which is legitimate and effective enough to manage conflict and negotiate reconstruction will be central to this process.
The comprehensive resolution of political violence will require a clear-headed appraisal of the current context in which violence is occurring. The desire for peace should not blind South Africans to the realities of long-standing and deeply-entrenched divisions based on a multitude of animosities, often intermeshed and seldom easy to address. The long-standing use of violence as a political tool and a means of resolving disputes did not automatically disappear with the advent of the Government of National Unity. Fundamental democracy which permeates all levels of society will be a long-term process which will need to be fought for over time.
On the other side of the coin, the election of a new government does create the possibility for the establishment of effective and legitimate police-community consultative forums, the primary objectives of which should be to manage and negotiate conflicts which were previously resolved through force. In addition, the judicial system will need to re-establish itself quickly as a legitimate means of resolving disputes and redressing grievances.
It is crucial that a new ethos is created, whereby South Africans know that conflict will be resolved through the mechanisms of legitimate and representative state structures. Clearly, education programmes and a general publicity campaign will be needed to reverse years of suspicion of government structures, many of which were deeply implicated in the implementation of apartheid. This re-education should be complemented by concrete changes which will make these structures more accessible and accountable to the people they serve.
REFERENCES
- This point was noted by Etienne Marais in Report of the Community Policing Working Group, 1992
|
|
|