Dear Editor,
Transnational data on private security governance through the introduction of fair regulatory frameworks clearly shows that the lack of reliable facts and figures has been and remains typical of the private security industry. This has led to decision making by government officials, without the benefit of the relevant research, which would provide sufficient knowledge and understanding of the private industry, and the ability to evaluate the effects of regulations on it.
The term private security industry is intended to encapsulate as far as practicable those entities and individuals who are involved in the provision of the following services:- CCTV installation, computer forensic and investigations, document security and destruction, independent security consultancy services, investigations, locksmiths, security courier systems, security training bodies, security response units, and the provision of various forms of guarding functions by private companies.
Though proprietary security or in house security is not classified as for profit it is internationally considered a legitimate part of the private security industry and is more often covered by such regulations; as the in house mode of delivery could be easily used as a front to circumvent regulations.
Notwithstanding the above, most regulatory regimes are intended and as such, focus on the provision of guarding functions provided by private companies.
A comparative study of existing regulatory regimes internationally, reveal that while there is little difference among them, those that originate in developed societies reflect a mature posture on the part of the comptrollers, leaving latitude for self-monitoring and voluntary compliance. On the other hand, many of the regulatory regimes in developing countries reflected the socio political culture of the society, and tended to espouse a hegemonic posture.
Thus the governments of many developing countries are in the habit of classifying private security functions as quasi-police or law enforcement functions; and tend to see the industry as an appendage of the traditional law enforcement apparatus.
This has seen the private security industry closely resembling the state security machinery; and being military like in orientation, as is the case in many developing countries, with Barbados and a few others being notable exceptions to the rule. Guyana for its part still contributes statistics to the former model.
For these reasons security companies like Security Solutions and Federal Management Systems to a less extent, do not market their services heavily on the conspicuous display of arms in their advertisements. It must be remembered that these two companies originated in advanced societies, where this particular aspect of private security culture has long been considered taboo.
The proposed Private Security Services (Regulation) Bill 2007 allows for a police figure to impose its will on the private security industry, an industry whose new found character and ethos the police know very little about.
Yours faithfully,
Clairmont Featherstone
