Empowering police under autonomy

The following is an excerpt from an interview with criminologist Adrianus Meliala , who addressed a conference on crime, police and the state at the University of Melbourne last month.

Question: Regional autonomy has emphasized the importance of police restructuring; the primary issue must be, how much power should be devolved to the regions?

Answer: A decree issued by the People's Consultative Assembly has placed the police under the office of the President. But it stresses that the police are an apparatus of the state, not of the government.

And that implies that the police are a national force, as a provision in the draft Bill on the police force also indicates.

In addition the laws on regional autonomy and fiscal balance clearly position the police force as one of the five unifying pillars of the nation.

Q: So what will be the main changes in police structure?

A: Adjustments in the structure are clearly necessary. We will not have a decentralization or federalization of the police force, but we have a solution, which is "deconcentration."

This involves restructuring where central government still holds the highest authority, while devolution of power to the regions, as much as necessary, will be eventuated.

Q: Can you give an example?

A: So far, the regional police are only authorized to handle minor crimes such as petty theft and neighborhood squabbles. Major crimes like homicides have to be referred to Jakarta, understandably because of the complex nature of the crimes, where forensic and interview experts, as well as documentation personnel and data, are essential.

Regional basic operation units are far from adequate. With deconcentration, these units will be greatly improved and enriched, in terms of equipment, facilities and human resources.

This devolution of power implies that in cases categorized as public disorder, the regional heads of police will have the authority to make their own policies in handling cases. They will have the power, for instance, to open fire, or to stem the flow of a demonstration in whatever way they deem suitable.

Q: What is the difference between that set up with decentralization?

A: It would be better than decentralization for several reasons. Decentralization of the police would undermine the integrity of the legal structure of the nation.

Everyone of us is subject to the same laws. If the police were to be decentralized, it would change the law in each region.

Secondly, if each region had its own police force, we couldn't guarantee the same quality in the delivery of service, because some regions are bound to have less resources than others, in terms of expertise, information technology, and funding.

This would have undesirable consequences, such as the reluctance of personnel to live and work in certain regions. In fact, most personnel would choose to live in Jakarta. And poor regions would become even less habitable as a result of the local governments' inability to combat crime.

Q: Is that not the case at present?

A: Being a national body, police personnel regard being posted to different regions as part of their career maturation. Besides, decentralization carries the fear of an acceleration of national disintegration.

If the heads of police were to be appointed by regional councils, there would be a political battle among different factions over who would want to appoint their own candidates.

And once the individuals were appointed, they would be vulnerable to being compromised by their political patrons. Regional heads of police need to be people who have no political debt of honor to anyone.

Presumably, being sent by central government would get around this problem, because as soon as there are indications that a regional head of police has colluded with a local political leader, he or she would be recalled, pronto.

Q: Are there any disadvantages of a centralized system?

A: Yes. There will always be rivalry and a tug-of-war between the center and the regions in every aspect. Apart from that, in the present police culture one thing needs attention, that is the promotional procedure.

There are officers who have been serving in one region for years, who seem to be continuously overlooked by the system, and in the meantime, some officers who have barely warmed their seats are already promoted to higher ranks.

This may be related to the fact that they are all appointed from Jakarta, and the ones who do get promoted are usually those whom the appointing higher officers know, having been their subordinates or having done them a favor.

Q: So there is a great deal more to restructuring than just the degree of political devolution to the regions?

A: There certainly is. And just as importantly, the police have to work hard toward gaining the trust of the community in order for them to maintain law and order. (Dewi Anggraeni)