Some Fundamentals
Many Community Policing articles, books, manuals and training sessions will, somewhere at their beginning, make reference to the origins of Community Policing dating back to Sir Robert Peel and the formation of the London Metropolitan police in 1829. While Peel’s nine Principles apply to democratic policing today as much as they did in 1829, this can have the effect of unintentionally and unconsciously, setting the scene that Community-Based Policing is a concept, brand and philosophy “invented” and exported from in the “West.” This can be reinforced and compounded by, what have been termed as, “One shoe fits all” and “Off the shelf” packages, un-boxed and then delivered with minimal consideration for “will this work here”? While there is nothing wrong with covering what can be presented as, the origins of contemporary community policing, the authors argue that it can dictate how technical assistance in this field is introduced and pursued.
... in mission after mission . . . training programs have been put in place like canned food that is assumed to be universally nourishing. In complex environments, however, one size doesn’t fit all.[1]The very term “Community Policing” is ambiguous. According to some commentators, defining community policing is like trying to hold mercury in your hand.[2] The word “Community” is presented under its normal English meaning yet this does not always correspond to the understanding or meaning assigned to it in other languages. It is Anglicized, yet we seem to struggle and insist it is translated in these terms to whatever the language of the country the program is destined for. The question could be posed: For whose benefit? Is it to make it more “understandable” for the donors as, in some cases it either doesn’t make sense and other words are used to explain it, or there are no comparable words for it in the indigenous language?
We argue that, as the concept of Community Policing was developed in Western countries under quite different conditions than those in the Middle East and Africa, local context and history need to be taken into consideration in any attempt at implementing Community Policing and Engagement programs. As noted by Grande, “The idea of the state is western, of course, foreign to the African tradition…[3] and also as commented upon by the UK Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) in its March 2015 report on the absence of context setting in some UK-funded programs, “This [lack of context setting] has led to the repetition of a standard set of interventions across very different country contexts. The use of empirical evidence and contextual analysis is often weak and poorly linked to programme ‘designs.’”[4]
Several factors can affect the design and implementation of such a concept, some of which would include, the political culture, the level of commitment of police (buy-in), and the level of organization of local communities.[5] In addition to that, and most importantly, transformation must come from within the targeted organizations, which makes the job of implementing partners and consortia much more challenging as they need to bring about conviction and commitment within the receiving end.[6]
Internally, in some programs the absence of National Staff recruited at advisory level can be very telling in the approach being adopted. The whole process can be skewed toward Western practices by the very International staff brought in to deliver it. They may resort to type and fall back on processes “from home” that they know and understand best and are comfortable with. While, there arguably are practices that can apply to community-based policing wherever it is practiced, they still need to be contextualized and some simply may have to be abandoned as it becomes clear they are not suitable.
Practices will have to be identified by the beneficiary which may fit into the overall ethos and therefore form part of a new bespoke program and not simply suit the donor and make the job of those delivering it “easier.” Thought should be given to monitoring and evaluation of what may be untested and unknown quantities which may not “fit” with the norms of “Western community policing.” The adage “if it can’ t be measured it doesn’t get done” is to be avoided in such circumstances as this can skew the program back to the default settings, which may not be what are needed in a new environment. However, this is not about completely re-inventing the wheel or rewriting the ethos of community-based policing; innovation is to be encouraged. Engagement with police, communities and other stakeholders should be undertaken at the outset to understand what is needed, what will and what will not work and what is to be avoided. If possible, this should inform part of a program’s terms of reference (ToR) at the outset. As the 2015 UK ICAI Report states, “DFID needs to rethink its approach to community security, working with a wider range of partners to develop tailored solutions to local problems.”[7]
Due regard to context setting is, therefore, of paramount importance before a program is introduced and rolled out. This should be accompanied by, at the very least, a baseline assessment to help inform the direction, relevance, introduction/explanation and content of the program.
Of course, there may be interests on both sides when introducing such programs which, it could be suggested, are not exactly aligned. Donors may want to maintain their “footprint” while some beneficiaries might see an opportunity for new equipment, buildings, etc. It rather depends on which side of the fence one sits and how much time, effort and consultation is devoted to providing explanations and answering questions in the initial stages with both police and communities/other stakeholders
Where community policing and engagement is a new concept, it is not unusual to find, in the early stages, that certain departments within police organizations begin to see it as an opportunity to infiltrate communities as an intelligence gathering and informant recruitment exercise. If this is not dealt with at the “explanation” stage in stating what community policing is and what it is not, it will soon be exposed as an attempt by the police to spy on communities through the back door. Any hard-won trust and confidence in policing will be lost and difficult to recover from. Communities expectations are frequently allowed to be raised to a level which is not realistic nor sustainable by the police side. If communities see their expectations consistently dashed and promises broken, this adversely affects the ability of the program to recover and succeed.
Community priorities in this area can also be at odds with those of the police in terms of tangible and intangible needs and expectations. Communities for example, may want respect, transparency, accountability mechanisms, oversight and so on, to be paramount. Police, on the other hand, might want new vehicles, offices, computers, uniforms, and equipment and therefore not be so keen on training, for example. The police may sign up to the full package but could be slow on the uptake for selecting and sending officers on training courses unless there is an associated or perceived benefit in the issue of new equipment. The term “Training and Equipping” is often synonymous with such assistance programs, with emphasis on numbers trained (outputs) and scant regard for what difference it will make and how it will be used and measured in the work place (outcomes).
We have experience of Community Policing in many different regions and have taken two examples from the Horn of Africa (Somaliland) and the Middle East (Jordan) to illustrate how local communities and the police interact in areas of informal resolution, conflict transformation and problem solving. Although it is accepted that in Western countries this can also take place, it is the authors experiences that, in comparison, this exists at a much lower level and has not been developed, used or refined to the same extent. This is noted by Macfarlane[8] when asserting that Western states have seen an explosion in contemporary alternative dispute resolution practices due to the difficulties they face. These are then sometimes heralded as being innovative programs when they actually have been practiced and perfected elsewhere for centuries and could easily have been “imported” from the Middle East and Africa.
Somaliland
As with many places in Africa, an informal justice system exists in Somaliland which runs parallel to and complements, the formal system. The customary and traditional legal system in Somalia and Somaliland is known as “Xeer” (traditional mediation) and is implemented by clan elders. While formal as well as informal systems have their limitations, the Xeer does work in these contexts. It is customary, part of the culture, tradition and fabric of society and has been for centuries, much as common law has been in other places. In fact, as one of the authors discovered, it is the preferred resolution mechanism for low-level crimes and disputes, especially in rural and remote areas where access to police and justice is not readily available. The more serious crimes are reported directly to police by the victim or their representative, or by members of the “Xeer” if the crime was referred to them in the first instance but deemed too serious and outside their scope. Grande writes, “The traditional African system of dispute resolution has always been a collective enterprise with the involvement, in various ways, of the whole community.”[9]
The police input is minimal to this process and the ‘link’ between the formal and informal is the local police commander. Once a decision has been arrived at by the Xeer on retribution and the offender (or their family) capitulate, the outcome is normally reported to the local police (which might be a considerable distance away sometimes on foot).The local police keep a written record of all such occurrences which is reminiscent of a local Criminal Records Office. The police commander may also act as adjudicator in local disputes involving clans. The clan representatives will meet at the police station with the commander who, in many cases, is from outside of the region so not affiliated to either and seen as impartial and the decision is respected.
It is against this backdrop of strong community ties and customary problem-solving practices, that a Western style of community policing seems perhaps a little “backward” to those to whom it is being hailed as a best practice model. It is accepted that community policing can of course help increase trust, confidence and accountability in many areas where it is introduced and has been lacking, but as regards the standard Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) or similar problem solving model, which is often presented as a key element, it is perhaps not as novel an idea as it may first appear. How does an international “expert” explain that in their country such advanced problem-solving activities and informal resolution mechanisms simply don’t exist to this extent and would not work? The challenge here is to take a step backwards at the inception phase, to visit the communities, understand the systems, in this example the Xeer and how the local police interact with and are part of this. Only then can an attempt to be made to progress a program with regard to context and the needs and aspirations of communities and police.[10] Of course, there may be aspects such as Human Rights, Gender, etc. that are “non-negotiable” and will thus have to be addressed from the outset, but the theme here is of context and suitability. Trying to insert a Western model of community policing into such contexts displays a lack of understanding and some would say, a degree of arrogance. As alluded to by Professor S. J. Hansen in his 2019 concept note for the Norwegian University of Life Science “One Size Fits All?’”, consideration needs to be given to the “extent of parallel actors performing policing, as well as other networks that perform de facto policing, such as clans, family networks and tribes.”[11]
Jordan
Such methods of alternative dispute resolution are also used in Jordan. It is a practice well integrated within the police system and depends to a great extent on the traditional tribal law. These practices can be considered as advanced stages in problem solving, which is one the main elements of Community Policing concept.
Police Station Commanders have the power to handle some complaints without referring them to the court, but within specific conditions and controls. For example, complaints involving disputes or quarrels between two or more parties. If no injuries were reported, the police can work with the involved parties and some tribal notables if needed to resolve the problem without having to refer them to the court of law. This form of discretion is widely accepted and practiced in Jordan. Once again the authors point to what has been referred to as the erosion of discretion of police officers over the years in places such as the UK and recommendations made to reversing it: “The recommendations would also help restore police officers’ discretion; something this government has been eroding through the imposition of nationally set targets.”[12] It could be suggested therefore that in places such as the UK where police discretion has been ‘eroded’ over the years, that there is a realization it is an important element of policing in dealing with low level disputes. The difficulty here is, that when trying to transfer a western community policing ethos to regions and communities where discretion and informal alternative dispute resolution traditionally play such major parts, it is akin to dispensing with a round wheel and substituting it with a square one.
In Jordan when major crime occurs, the police seek the assistance and intervention from community and tribe notables, in order to prevent aggravation and to avoid random revenge by the victim’s family immediately after the crime has occurred.
Any future international initiative to support Community Policing in Jordan or to any of the countries in the MENA region or in Africa should take the existing practices in problem-solving into consideration. Experience suggests that combining international best practices in Community Policing with existing local practices can positively impact results on the ground, and will help in adopting such programs by the beneficiaries, with more support and engagement.
Conclusions
A plethora of police technical assistance programs develop year on year in different regions with differing goals. In respect of Community Policing/Engagement and Outreach wherever it is being introduced, the default position is, arguably, based on the western model. Tenders are often released with Terms of Reference (ToR) set, which the authors would suggest are sometimes inflexible and to be used as a measuring tool against, what may transpire to be, inappropriate objectives. As alluded to in the above text, on occasion it is possible that the ToR do not align completely with the context for which they are intended. Although to an extent this is understandable as there can be unknown quantities involved and predictions are difficult as to what circumstances and obstacles might be encountered, the result can be a community policing ethos being introduced which is not entirely suited to the environment.
This can lead to bewildered and confused police and population, resentment of “internationals involved” and ultimately wasted funding as square pegs are seemingly being used for round holes. The risk being, that once the program ends, community policing may collapse as no one is there to monitor, equipment has been acquired and there may be little motivation by police to continue, especially where it is perceived as a part of an accountability and oversight mechanism only. Independent monitoring and evaluation, such as that of the UK ICAI, is advisable therefore at each stage together with a flexible approach to measurement and direction. It should not be the case that projects simply forge ahead striving to meet targets and goals which may be inappropriate for the context simply to satisfy continued funding and life of a program.
Where possible, policy, strategy and training on this subject should be developed in tandem with and in full cooperation of, a national police training institute and/or university as well as consultation with civil society and other stakeholders. The authors would suggest that although national police colleges and institutes are sometimes “consulted,” they seldom are involved from the very outset in the design and delivery. Remarkably, consultation of civil society in development of community policing strategies and training courses is much less evident with the “police” assuming they already know what is important for communities.
The training of National Training staff to deliver usually appears much later (if at all) in the project and sometimes is an attempt to address the “sustainability” element and “tick that box” as. The authors argue that there currently exists an opportunity for a national, if not a regional center of excellence to be established in this field in the MENA and wider region. This is in line with what is suggested in the opening paragraph, that a fresh approach is needed to the development of this in the wider region. This should be nationally led with international assistance in its development which allows for full domestic ownership, buy-in, capacity building and sustainability.