Promotion by merit

The 23 constables took this action because they disagreed with merit being used as the criterion to promote officers. Other, higher-ranking officers who have not been promoted are also taking legal action. This has come about because, previously, seniority was pretty much the sole basis on which policemen were promoted. That changed with the introduction of a points system which took into account efficiency, education, discipline, fitness, and so on.

The constables opposing this new merit system have claimed that it doesn’t take account of their own merits. They have argued that the promotions have ignored their dedication and crime-fighting success, and instead been awarded on the basis of educational attainment. The disgruntled policemen even went so far to justify their own candidacy for promotion by claiming that they risked their lives every day in the performance of their duties.

Since these policemen are still alive to take court action, we would have thought that their survival would display so great a degree of merit as to make promotion to a higher rank inevitable. Indeed, if this group has been so successful in fighting crime, surely they would be able to offer irrefutable evidence of their competence. Apparently, however, this is not the case. Assuming that the points system is rigorous, it seems that the officers in question have been bypassed specifically because they do not have the qualities necessary to be an efficient and effective officer. They cannot cite their experience, because experience as a measure of time counts for naught in any profession. Experience only counts as a measure of learning — and, given the decision made by those in charge of the Police Service, it seems that most of these officers have failed to learn from experience.

However, in order to ensure fairness and transparency, it is necessary that the new merit system be audited by an independent party. This will be done by the court, now that Justice Judith Jones has cleared the way for the upgrading of the 302 police constables whose promotions were delayed by their colleagues.

Whether the new system is or is not rigorous, however, does not alter the fact that the Police Service has come to its present sorry pass partly because promotions have too long been based almost solely on seniority. This resulted in more and more incompetent persons being given authority, with a consequent rot in discipline and conscientiousness in the lower ranks, thus exacerbating the cycle of rot. The tipping point was probably passed some time ago, demonstrated by the dismal crime detection rate that now characterises the Service.

Many different measures are needed to reverse this slide. But, clearly, the first and most fundamental measure is to change the character of those who rise to the top in the Service. No society progresses unless its best persons are given authority and influence, and this is especially true of the Police Service. We hope that the authorities will stick to their guns in this matter, and eventually come to ignore seniority in favour of more relevant criteria when deciding who should be promoted to the higher ranks.