Real and imaginary police states

A police state debate usually arises on two occasions. The first is when politicians try to involve police officers in politics. This is a situation that highly discomforts police officers because they are reluctant to be perceived as influenced by politics. Police officers have obviously every right to political opinions but usually they take pride in diplomatically or energetically keeping their distance, in professional circumstances, from persons who try to involve them in politics.

Indeed, this reluctance to stay out of politics is an element of the pride of a police officer in his/her work. This does not mean that a police officer has a duty to keep aloof of politics when this involves his conditions of work. In this case, the interest in politics is not of a partisan nature but a duty towards oneself and one’s family.

I am of the opinion that the creation of a police association was a positive development since it helps the organisation of better work satisfaction to the police officer and the citizen. I am also in favour of giving trade union rights to members of the police force since, compared to other workers, these have a disadvantage as far as negotiations for their rights, conditions of work and salaries are concerned. Indeed, the police are owed a lot of money for overtime payment. At the same time, the ministry responsible for the police is not often inviting representations to discuss these realities.

Also, interpreters working for the police and the court have been asking for a meeting at the ministry for almost two years.

There should be two different ministries for home affairs and justice as the minister having to deal with both is overworked.

Cries of ‘police state’

I have sometimes been surprised to hear intelligent persons cry “police state” every time a citizen in a vulnerable area – like areas surrounding entertainment zones – asks for a better police presence and protection. Since the police have usually no right to debate their duties within communities, the hysterical shouts of “police state” are not always answered and many citizens think that the police do not reply because they are wrong.

Persons like me who are often close to police work feel it is unjust that citizens criticise workers who have no right to defend themselves. It is like kicking a person who is on the ground. A police officer does not write to the papers to state that in his area of work a handful of police officers have to look after the law and order of a wide zone. When incidents occur in different parts of this zone, citizens cry out: “Where are the police?”

Those who know that the police are not “multimen” and “multiwomen” also know that worried citizens are right to expect more police presence but they are wrong to think that a vulnerable zone is protected by dozens of policemen most of whom are relaxing and drinking champagne at the police station while one or two policemen go round a few streets to see if anything strange is happening.

The truth is that a station covering a large area often has only a handful of police officers. The station needs massive refurbishment and the police cars need a replacement of a few parts here and there, for example, the whole darned vehicle.

I suspect that those hollering “police state” when a real need arises to increase the number of police officers in an area must have some subconscious desire for profitable confusion since they do not seem too worried about anarchy. I wish to ask these persons to describe in what way the increase of a couple of cops in a vulnerable zone renders that zone a police state.

Politicians and policemen

I now come back to my initial discussion about politics and the police. There are areas where cooperation between politicians and the police is indispensible. Politicians usually live in one area for several years. Policemen are moved around stations. It is normal that a politician is expected to know his area very well. The duty of a politician is to be close to citizens unless s/he has the erroneous idea that it suffices to live in an ivory tower to be a politician.

A politician has the duty to walk around the area from which s/he expects votes and talk to citizens. S/he is also expected to frequently discuss with the police the problems of the area and take initiatives to help the police solve them.

This is why my articles always encourage voters to vote for political candidates who show their face – and their feet – in areas from where they hope to be elected. I have no problem suggesting to voters not to vote for candidates they rarely see.