DEMOCRATIC accountability in policing implies that policing is supportive and respectful of human rights.
The protection of life and dignity of individuals is a priority for police agencies in democratic societies.
It requires police to protect the freedoms in a democracy. Such characteristics include freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of association, assembly and movement, and impartiality in the administration of law.
When people talk about democratic accountability in policing, most often it is after things have gone wrong.
They refer to things like criminal prosecutions and suits, coroner’s inquest and royal commissions. Dashboard and body cameras are a form of hindsight accountability. All of these illustrate police misconduct.
The problem that arises here is that the public is excluded from determining what policing prac tices and policies should be.
When the people’s voice is heard, policing practices will change.
Most won’t deny that secrecy around policing is necessary, especially with investigations into high-profile cases.
We don’t want to disrupt nor sabotage investigations. The debate here is what policing issues should be publicly debated without jeopardising police operations and investigations.
People will insist that policing must be seen to be democratic. An effective solution to democratic accountability in policing is through direct engagement with the police.
Blaming them without facts will only harm the relationship. Instead, we must give police the assurance and understanding that they can invite in the public voice without being blamed or insulted when there is a conflict of ideas or disagreement.
Realistically, policymakers are not expected to do everything the public demands. But, policymakers and police leadership are expected to listen to the public and engage them.
Engagement between the police and public must be proactive. A reactive style of engagement creates only negative barriers and perception, and distances the police from the public. Policymakers and police leadership must change what they can, and explain the choices they make, so those decisions can be fairly and justly evaluated by the public.
P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Research Team on Crime and Policing, School of Social Sciences,
Universiti Sains Malaysia