Law enforcement and accountability

In the last one year, the news that mostly occupied headlines in the US concerned police excesses. This began with the infamous riots in Ferguson, Mississippi, following the killing of a young man while fleeing from a shop after attempted robbery. He was shot several times by police, although he was apparently unarmed. This much publicised incident was closely followed by several other cases of police shooting people to death in different US cities on the plea that they were resisting arrest. Incidentally, all the victims were black young men, one of whom was a twelve-year-old. 

The killings by police led to days of unrest, and rioting in the affected cities and neighbourhoods that required intervention from state and federal levels to contain these. In all cases, the errant police officials were brought to task, and criminal cases were initiated against them for excesses, and in some cases, for manslaughter. The incidents also brought into fore the underlying causes of police highhandedness against minorities and thrust the country into a political debate, casting one section of the people against police for use of force and another defending their action as proper law enforcement.

One now hears a similar debate in Bangladesh relating to our police. There is not much we hear in their defence, except that not all in the police force are reprobates and that many have been forced to commit excesses because of the political environment in the country. 

There is hardly any parallel between police excesses and brutality in US and Bangladesh. First, unlike Bangladesh police, the police force in the US is not a centralised force responding to one single command or structure. In the US, the police is a local force. Each city or county has its own police force, and it is under the command and control of a chief, who in some cases may even be elected. In all cases, whether it is county or city police, the chief is accountable to the local authority, which is an elected body. Second, the incidents that brought nationwide attention to police excesses related to police response to criminal offenses and apprehension of suspected criminals. And more importantly, the public reaction to police excesses reflected the widespread perception of the discriminatory treatment of a particular section of the community than flouting of law by the police themselves.

In Bangladesh, the criticism of police and overall conduct of our law enforcement agencies is not about any systematic mistreatment of a particular community or about excessive use of physical force. The discussion is about the image of our law enforcement force, perception of its conduct in its overall role as the preserver and protector of citizens' life and property, and the reputation it has earned over time for exploitation and extortion. 

Unfortunately, this debate over the role of police and its conduct has been going on in the country for as long as one can remember. The perception of the police force as agents of the ruling establishment dates back to colonial times when the police played a useful role in suppressing opposition to British rule and its representatives who administered a province. In return for complete loyalty to the colonial rulers, the police in a district or thana were given a kind of fiefdom where they could run their affairs without fear or favour. The British-Indian police was deliberately made into a ruler's force with little provision for citizen accountability. The objective to rule this large country was achieved through a police force that was cheap to operate, brutal and exploitative to the people, and completely unaccountable to the citizens; the police were accountable only to their chain of command and to the authorities the command reported to. 

Sadly, nothing changed long after the British had left the region, and we went through two successive periods of independent governments. We inherited a system that is still largely grounded on an Act that was adopted 150 years ago (Police Act of 1861), which was enacted by the British in the aftermath of the Mutiny of 1857 or the First War of Independence. The British, at that time, wanted to establish a police force that would suit the purpose of crushing dissent and any movement for self-government. The Act is a virtual compendium on the constitution of the police force, organisation, and police-magistracy as well as police-public relations. There have been calls from time to time, in India particularly, to amend the Act to make it more suited to the changing times, so as to make the police more responsive to public needs. However, there have been no serious attempts to either replace or make major changes in the Act at a political level, as the Act seemed to have served the governments, elected or otherwise, quite well.  

Few fundamental aspects of rule of law are: application of law to all citizens without bias or discrimination, transparency of actions, and accountability. We may have very efficient law enforcement agencies in the country, but this efficiency is meaningless if the agencies are imbued in a culture of impunity from law itself. Random cases of departmental action against recalcitrant officials may attract news headlines but these will not cure the perception of venality, extortion and total absence of accountability embedded in our law enforcement agencies.  

There is no silver bullet that will suddenly rid us of the negatives that surround law enforcement agencies. Years of indulgence and heavy use of political pressure on the agencies have led us to where we are now. But a beginning needs to be made. Democracy cannot be sustained without rule of law, but this rule of law should also be equally applied to the agencies themselves. This requires a firm resolve from our political leadership to reform the agencies, starting with making them accountable for their actions and releasing them from political pressure at all levels. Maybe we can make some progress then. 

The writer is a political commentator and analyst.