Nothing happens in the police force without the blessing of the Police Commissioner. Indeed, the law gives the Police Commissioner wide powers over the force. The Police Act makes it very clear that the head of the police force “shall have the command, direction, management and superintendence of the force”.
Police commissioners over the years have adopted different styles of management, ranging from the overbearing to the less intrusive. But, in every case, the buck always stopped with them. This may not be a bad thing because it gives accountability a name and rank. However, concentrating every decision in the hands of one person can also risk stifling initiative and change as well as give lethargic officers a reason why not to fully shoulder their responsibility.
The present set up gives the Police Commissioner overall responsibility and, much in line with the ethos of a disciplined corps, this has, over decades, been matched with a mentality that practically distrusts devolution of power.
It is possibly this structure that has motivated the government to consider an alternative set-up that would see the introduction of a chief executive in the police force. According to the call for applications, the CEO will be responsible for managing the financial and administrative matters, human resources management, corporate branding and ICT and automation.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of many police officers the call for applications has fallen short of the onerous conditions they would have expected for such a difficult and sensitive post. It gives the impression the government already has somebody in mind and if that is the case it would be wrong.
The move could prove to be a game-changer but the mere introduction of a CEO will not bring about the mentality shift required for a more dynamic police force. In fact, it risks creating a turf war between the Police Commissioner and the CEO unless this forms part of a thorough overhaul.
Such an overhaul must, of course, start from the very top. It is certainly not very healthy knowing that, in just over three years of this government, the police force has fallen under the political responsibility of two different Cabinet ministers and has been led by no fewer than five police commissioners, including two in an acting role.
The police force definitely needs some serious attention. That would not only raise the morale of the wo/men in blue but also serve society better. More importantly, it would boost the trust police officers need to have from society if they are to effectively fight criminality and ensure that people feel safe in their houses and on the streets.
A turf war between the police chief and a CEO would, no doubt, impinge on morale and risks compromising police work, which will then impact ordinary citizens. The ripple effect would have consequences that could only benefit the bad elements of society.
While the CEO decision is a break with the status quo, a more comprehensive root and branch reform is required to define areas of competence, proper internal and external complaints procedures and better gender balance at all echelons.
Rather than appointing a CEO, the starting point should be a decision on a permanent, rather than acting, Police Commissioner who is seen by one and all as not having any strings attached. There are young, brilliant serving officers to choose from. What is essential is that the choice is the right one. Then, the chosen one can him/herself proceed to select the CEO.