Police Commissioner Elections

The shambles of the Police Commissioner Elections, the low turnout, the spoiled ballot papers, and the sometimes inane, sometimes ill-informed comments on Facebook, combine to reveal how colossally ill-informed most members of our society are. I find myself driven to set out the basic principles involved once and for all, rather than arguing with so many, far too many, of my friends.

The basic principle of democracy is that the people cede to some of their number power to make decisions over them, and to exercise certain controls over the people at large for the benefit of all. But the ultimate authority remains with the people at large, to whom those given power are accountable. One of the ways in which that accountability is exercised is through removing those who hold the offices of the state from their jobs and replacing them with others. This is the essence of democratic accountability. It is shocking that this basic feature of our system of government is so poorly understood.

As it happens, the system actually doesn't work terribly well in this country, but one of the hopeful signs is that there are moves afoot to extend the ability the people have to call those in authority over them to account. One of the most important of these is the police. They have considerable powers, and very many of the people are dissatisfied with the way those police powers are exercised.

There are examples in the rest of the world where the changes proposed for us have been in effect for a number of years, notably the USA. I happen to know a bit about the way it works there, which can be summed up in a single word – variably. But I do know examples of where it works very well, where the police take into account public concerns and act accordingly, and where, because the Chief of Police's job depends on it, good relations with the public are a priority. The Chief of Police is elected, that's why his job depends on how satisfied the public are. This is an example of democratic accountability.

Someone suggested that we should invite applications for the job and appoint a suitable person in the usual way.  This raises a simple issue. The police have power over the public. It is therefore appropriate in a democratic system that the public hold the police to account, that they have a say over police priorities, and the ability to remove from office the Chief of Police if these matters are not held to be discharged satisfactorily. If the usual route of appointing people to jobs is followed that democratic control is absent. No-one has any say over who does the appointing of the Chief of Police – it regresses to an oligarchy.

The persons who have been elected Police Commissioners now have a difficult job, made harder by the absence of a proper mandate, vulnerable to dismissal when the next election arises, and vulnerable to criticism and complaint from those who did not bother to cast a vote, who gave up their right to have a say, and who will complain none-the-less anyway. Democracy works worst when the people do not play their parts – voting people into power and then holding the people they have elected accountable.

If we get bad policing the responsibility lies with those who did not exercise their democratic rights and responsibilities. If we get good policing the credit belongs in part to good police officers and in part to good Commissioners who will have done a difficult job without the public support they deserved.