Community policing is a public good. It has the potential to contribute measurably to human security and public safety. The system was introduced in 1976 with the formation of what were then called crime prevention committees as a response to certain types of anti-social behaviour and delinquency in small communities. They were the bases from which community policing evolved.
Hardly a month passes without news of Minister of Home Affairs Mr Clement Rohee presenting something to policing groups somewhere. Berets; batons; batteries; bicycles; boats; caps; outboard engines, vehicles, motor-cycles; flashlights, radio sets, handcuffs galore have been handed out. Only last week, for example, he handed over shotguns, ammunition and other items valued at over $1.1 M to a single group on East Coast Demerara. Mr Rohee says that the administration budgeted $65M for community policing this year. What return on this investment can the public expect?
There have been some underperforming and dysfunctional groups. Mr Rohee told the annual conference and general meeting this year of concerns about the functioning of some groups which were seen as “exclusive clubs to themselves.” He appealed to them to ensure [that] they maintain cordial contact with their communities. On another occasion, he complained that “several persons do not understand the role of CPGs,” and challenged them to make determined efforts to “bridge the disconnect” between themselves and their respective communities.
The ‘disconnect’ exists as much between the groups and their communities as between the groups and the police. Some time ago, one police divisional commander baldly accused community policing groups of having “lost their focus” and that there was need for them to re-examine their role and legal status and “determine whether their mandate was relevant to today’s society.” Even the former information liaison to the president once complained, correctly, that many community policing groups “emerged when there were instances of crime or threats of security breaches. Once these subsided, these groups returned to dormancy, thus posing a challenge to the police in terms of their consistency and reliability.”
Clearly, if reliability is still questionable after 32 years, something must have gone wrong. The basic question to be answered is “Are community policing groups intended to be a parallel political force under the control of an elected minister in Brickdam or part of the professional police force under the command of the commissioner of police in Eve Leary?
Mr Rohee recently met representatives of community policing groups to examine and adopt the new constitution of the so-called Community Policing Organisation of Guyana. But what is needed is compliance with the national law, not the contrivance of an organisational constitution. Promising that “community policing is, and shall remain, an integral part of the government’s crime-fighting strategy,” is not enough.
For community policing to function effectively, the administration must incorporate it fully into the professional police force. The force itself must be brought up to its manpower establishment strength and be provided with the equipment to enable it to fight banditry and piracy and prevent gun running. It must start to do this enhancing the constables’ conditions of service and recruiting a sufficient number of them to fill the hundreds of vacancies in the force. Community policing is a procedure that promotes partnerships and problem-solving techniques to improve public safety by forging bonds of mutual trust between the police and the public. It is not to be a separate organisation and does not require establishing and equipping a parallel police force.
Most important, the commissioner of police must bear responsibility under the law for community policing which must support professional law enforcement, not supplant it.
