Police Reform

It appears that police officers intend to resist any and all attempts to reform the Service. In December last year, the Police Second Division Association (PSDA) instructed its members not to take polygraph tests. The Association’s argument was that the tests were not being used for the purpose they were designed for. Specific objections, however, were not given, and a request by this newspaper for clarification has been met with blank silence from the PSDA. Now the Assistant Superintendents are protesting an attempt to have their promotions based on a written test. This was reportedly one of the recommendations made by consultant Stephen Mastrofsky, but senior officers are saying that they were never consulted on the matter. They are also arguing that the writing of a test is illegal, since Section 20 of the police regulations already sets out the criteria for promotion.

Cabinet should deal with the second objection as soon as possible. If the police regulations prevent a written test being the basis for promotion, then those regulations must be changed. We are certain that, if it is needed, the Government can get Opposition support on this matter. After all, it appears that the present system allows the elevation of, if not actual illiterates, then certainly persons whose academic competence does not meet the standard required for a modern police service. We can see no other reason for the vehemence with which the ASPs are objecting to this proposal for a written test.

If this is so, and if police officers are objecting to reforms reflexively, then we might also query the usefulness of consultation. After all, the senior officers, just like the officers of the PSDA, have not said exactly how their reaction would have been different if they had been consulted. Are they happy with the present method of promotions and think that no changes are required? Are they satisfied with the present system overall or, if they are not, what are the specific areas that they would want changed?

It may be, however, that the Cabinet has indeed been acting in a high-handed manner and instituting changes without proper consultation of officers. If this is so, such an approach is guaranteed to be ineffectual, on two grounds. Firstly, no systemic changes can come about without the cooperation of at least the senior officers. Secondly, without consultation, the Cabinet cannot justify its reforms on the basis that police officers have not suggested alternatives or have not made clear exactly what their objections are. In the cases of polygraphs and the written promotion tests, the Cabinet has a strong basis for showing up the recalcitrance of police officers, and so justifying the desired reforms. On the other hand, if the officers do have cogent alternatives, then the reform programme can proceed even more quickly and efficiently.

The Government must bear in mind that instituting reforms is not only necessary in the fight against crime, but will also have public approval. Although there have been recent signs that the apprehension of criminals is improving, there is still a long way to go before the Police Service can call itself truly professional and competent. And a crucial part of that transformation is getting the bad eggs out of the Service and ensuring that elevation to the top ranks is done on the basis of meritocracy, not just seniority. Officers who object to these aims are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.