THE killing of George Floyd in the US marked the beginning of the ‘Defund the police’ movement. DPM gained traction worldwide, giving rise to interesting questions: is defunding possible? Is the police not important for maintaining order and keeping communities safe? Is the campaign an attempt to make police more accountable?

DPM calls for divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to alternative models based on community-centric approaches, ie education, healthcare, restorative justice, employment programmes and community development.

DPM perceives policing as a tool for maintaining racial supremacy. Its advocates argue that police reforms have failed to deter police from excessive use of force against citizens and therefore resources should be reallocated to sectors that contribute to crime.

Since 1990, US police have received excess military equipment worth $6 billion. The country spends about $100bn on policing. On average, 1,000 people are killed by police every year. DPM resulted in a cut of $870 million in the police budgets of more than 20 US cities.

More resources do not guarantee good policing.

The 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri led to body cameras being made mandatory for police officers. However, a study of more than 2,000 officers published in 2017 found that the cameras failed to deter use of excessive force. Proponents of DPM thus argue that police are incapable of changing and more resources do not guarantee good policing.

The US media projected DPM as punitive action against the police for perceived misconduct and an expression of concern for the right to life of blacks. It also intensified debate about acutely embedded racism within the police. Those subscribing to this view contend that during the last four decades, racially targeted policing led to five times more arrests of black Americans than white Americans during stop-and-search operations and the war on drugs.

However, a recent analysis of 18m 911 calls made to Los Angeles Police during the past decade revealed that only eight per cent were related to violent crime, which negates the DPM narrative. Globally, police are frequently called to respond to minor disorders, dispute mediation, traffic collisions and low-level property crimes. Thus, besides crime management the performance of non-policing functions is a universal practice.

The demand to abolish the police is illogical and illegal because the world over they are legally mandated to prevent and detect crimes and protect human rights. Though not formally trained to deal with social issues, which have rapidly increased on account of urbanisation and technological innovations, they are also expected to deal with them. However, expecting officers to act as social workers without being trained as first responders in situations like accidents and fire has further burdened the police. In Pakistan, too, police are burdened with non-policing functions such as assistance to banks in loan recoveries, recoveries of utility bills and helping municipalities in anti- encroachment drives.

Formalising police participation in humanitarian and social areas may improve the police image. In this context, Pakistan Motorway police is a success story where officers have been trained to deal with accidents, trauma situations and firefighting. A pragmatic appr­oach to redefine policing means violence interruption programmes and increased use of community mediation. Following such an approach, the KP Police Act 2017 incorporated concepts such as public liaison councils and dispute resolution councils.

Despite constraints and limited capacity, police are performing functions such as tracing the heirs of unidentified dead bodies, reuniting lost children with their families, incurring meal expenses for detainees in lockups, dealing with refugees and IDPs — in the absence of dedicated funds. Compared with Police Act 1861, Police Order 2002 enhanced non-policing duties but the training and funding was not commensurate with the 18 duties defined in it.

DPM should be considered an opportunity to understand society’s frustration and needs, reassess police performance and relieve police of incompatible responsibilities. To meet public expectations, police chiefs in Pakistan need to readjust training priorities and focus on public safety. Public service delivery needs better skills, transparency, technological knowhow, and communication strategy. The transition from numerical-cum-paramilitary policing to a community policing model where public safety and police accountability are priorities is inevitable. The logical option is not to waste time and resources on a ‘defund police’ debate but rather reform police with improved police-public engagement and input from all stakeholders. Proponents of DPM shall realise that investment in the police is an investment in peace.

The writer is author of Pakistan: In Between Extremism and Peace.

Twitter: @alibabakhel

Published in Dawn, November 5th, 2021