Accountability

Definition

Police accountability requires police officers and the institutions to which they belong to explain, justify and answer for their conduct. Individual police officers are obliged to account internally to their superiors and to an internal investigation unit and, in established and emerging democracies, to external, independent accountability institutions. At the political level, police organizations commonly answer to a senior member of government (such as a police minister, attorney-general or general directorate of public security).

Distinctive Features

Police accountability structures and processes are determined by the nature of a sovereign state and its particular political system. For example, in totalitarian regimes the police are the tool of government and are used by those in power to exercise authoritarian control over citizens in general and to suppress any opposition to the ruling elite in particular. There is no sense of ‘policing by consent’ and hence no requirement that police organizations or individual officers account to the people for the way in which they exercise their coercive powers, or of police using them according to the rule of law, a doctrine which holds that all citizens are equal before the law and will be treated equally by it. In totalitarian regimes the relationship between the police and government is so intertwined that they are often referred to as ‘police states’.

In contrast, in democratic societies, police are required to adhere to the rule of law, abide by due process when enforcing the law and protect citizens’ human, civil and political rights. This protection encompasses any illegal action by the state and extends to all members of legislatures regardless of the position they hold. The parameters of police power and the way in which police are held to account for the exercise of those powers is laid down in legislation enacted by freely elected and representative legislatures. Regardless of how circuitous the route, ultimate accountability is to the people through their elected representatives.

External, independent civilian oversight bodies are slowly becoming an accepted feature of police accountability in established and emerging democracies. These bodies are independent of the police organizations they oversee and in some, but not all cases, are independent of government in that they report to the legislature or a committee of the legislature rather than directly to a government minister. The former reporting structure helps to depoliticize the police accountability process.

The role of civilian oversight bodies is to monitor, review and/or investigate alleged corruption and misconduct. The more advanced civilian oversight bodies have ‘own motion powers’ which allow them to adopt a proactive approach to police accountability. It means that they do not have to first receive a formal complaint from a member of the community [Page 2]or another police officer before they can act, but rather can initiate their own investigations into suspected misconduct and corruption.

The level of government that has jurisdiction over general duties police determines to whom the police are accountable in a political sense. In some countries, including the US and the UK, policing is largely a matter for local government. In other countries it is the responsibility of state/provincial/regional governments (for example Canada and Australia). Under this arrangement accountability is to a designated minister of the state, province or region. Various countries organize their police on a national level (such as New Zealand) and where this occurs, accountability is through a minister of the national government. But distinctions are not clear cut. In many countries policing takes place at each level (local, state and national) with each jurisdiction having its own distinct accountability structure.

...