Community Policing in Nepal
Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa,
Additional Inspector General of Police (Retired)
Background: Defining community policing
The Nepal Police are responsible for the prevention and control of crime and
the maintenance of law and order in the country. The police have adopted both--reactive and
proactive--approaches to dispense its duties. Community Policing (CP) is
considered a proactive approach of policing. Friedmann defines it as, "a
policy and a strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime
control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, improved police
services and police legitimacy, through a proactive reliance on community
resources that seeks to change crime-causing conditions. This assumes a need
for greater accountability of police, greater public share in decision making,
and greater concern for civil rights and liberties."(Friedmann, 1992:4).
Australian Police Commissioners have emphasized the
importance of policing in and through communities and have publicly committed
themselves to "actively involving the community in preventing and reducing
crime" (Fleming & O’Reilly 2007: 214).
Diamond and Weiss define it as, "In general terms, community policing is
not a program; it is not a set of activities; it is not a personnel
designation. Rather, community policing
is a law enforcement philosophy, a way of thinking about improving public
safety. While there is a lack of standardization
regarding specific terminology and strategies of community policing across
cities, community policing efforts can generally be grouped into three broad
categories: organizational transformation, community partnership, and problem
solving."
About
the development of community policing in the US, Sarah Lawrence and Bobby McCarthy
write, "Under this model, local police departments were organized around
strict hierarchical lines, utilized standardized operational protocols, and
emphasized responding to serious crimes when they occurred. As social disorder and crime rates began to
rise during the second half of the century, law enforcement and other municipal
leaders began to re-examine the role of police departments in public safety
management and craft reform efforts that sought to reduce crime through
improved relationships and direct partnerships between citizens and police.
These efforts eventually coalesced around a new philosophy of law enforcement
known as “community policing,” which stressed more direct officer involvement
with local citizens, was organized around less rigid hierarchies and protocols,
and attempted to address the root causes of neighborhood crime with the
assistance of the larger community.
Nepal has
the legacy of regimental policing. The reformation of the present police, which
took place in 1951-52, was the result of the amalgamation of militias, the Rakshya Dal, Janamukti Sena, who took up arms against the hundred and four years
of tyrannous Rana regime. Many freedom fighters, amongst them, Gyan Bahadur
Yakthumba, Pahal Singh Lama, Rom Bahadur Thapa, and Dil Bahadur Lama had joined
the police. Gyan Bahadur Yakthumba
joined the police with the rank of Major,
who, later on, was promoted to the rank of Inspector General of Nepal Police.
Many others also occupied key positions in the police in the subsequent years. For
that reason, the very foundation of the police was based upon the revolutionary
and military mindset and culture. The duty of the police of that time was to
support the political regime or the particular government. The services to the
people were of the least priority. The police basically misinterpreted their
mission and "ruled" the people.
History
of the Japanese Police Box System
It was
during Oct. 27—Nov 13, 1996, that I had had the opportunity to join a large
team of police officers from the Asia Pacific region to participate in a training
seminar on the Koban System of Japan and Its Adaptation
as Neighborhood Police Posts
in Singapore, which was held in Singapore and Japan. The visiting team of
police officers was highly impressed by the police box or "Coban" and
“Chuzaisho” (residential police boxes), the system of policing in Japan.
From
the 17th to 19th century, Japan was ruled by a succession of shoguns, a time
called the Edo period. The rule of the shoguns came to an end between 1867 and
1968 in what is known as the Meiji Restoration, and Japan began its march
towards a modern nation-state. As part of this process, the Tokyo Metropolitan
Police Department was established in 1874 to protect public order in Tokyo, the
capital. In that year, “Kobansho” (designated places where policemen engaged in
standing watch duties in shifts) were set up at major intersections and other
important locations in Tokyo. Boxes were built at some Kobansho locations later
on. In 1881, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department decided to provide all
Kobansho with boxes, and their name was changed to “Hashutsujo” (police box). This
effectively marked the beginning of today’s police box system. Subsequently,
the police box system spread to other prefectures. At that time, 330 police
boxes were established, manned by 2,042 officers.
In
1886, when the Local Civil Service System was decreed through an imperial
order, a “one police station for one county or city” system was established. In
1888, the Ministry of the Interior issued an administrative ordinance to all
prefectures, except Tokyo, demanding to set up “Chuzaisho” (residential police
boxes), in every town and village in principle.
Advancement
of community policing in Nepal
The Chhimeki Prahari system of policing was
first established in early 1982 during the time of IGP Dil Bahadur Lama. This
system was an adaptation of Japan's Coban Police and Singapore’s Neighbourhood
Police Post (NPP). Several police booths were established in the Kathmandu
valley. The mandates for this Chhimeki
Prahari were to patrol the areas and collect public grievances, demands,
and propositions of all kinds. I remember myself going around the city
corner—house-to-house—asking and taking records of local people’s needs and
complaints as part of the public consultations. These demands and complaints
were wide-ranging in nature—from family matters to road, drinking water,
telephone, street lights, sewerage, theft cases, gangsters, drugs, etc. These
records were then reported back to the police headquarters. Understandably,
only very few complaints were attempted to address. The rest of the complaints
were forgotten and never addressed. So, both--people and police--lost interest
in this type of policing. Nepal Police failed to effectively collaborate with local
people, governmental, and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, it did not
last for a long time.
Once again,
after the people's democratic revolution, on 14 January 1994, a community
police centre was established in Maharajgunj of Kathmandu as an NGO with the
cooperation of the local community. Similar types of police centres were also
established in Chabahil and Baneswor of Kathmandu district as pilot projects.
As of now, there are more than one hundred such community centres established
in Nepal. These centres have different names: Community Service Forums;
Community Service Society; Community Development Centre; Public Service Centre;
Community Police Service Centre; Community Police Service Forums; Community
Service Committee; Multipurpose Community Service Centres; Community
Development Cooperative Forum, etc. Almost all of these centres engage in several
activities in addition to policing crime.
Through
these centres, the police are able to participate in local development, women's
literacy, community health, child care, environmental preservation, health
services, youth activities, and many other social service programmes. This
makes Nepal's community police system quite different from that of Singapore’s
Neighbourhood Police Post, Japan’s Coban system, and other countries. This
community policing approach has, however, not been accepted as a credible style
of policing by all police officers themselves. There are doubts amongst many
police officers about the practicability of this approach. This is largely
because they have failed to realize that it is possible to be a friend while simultaneously
doing an effective police job.
The
involvement of police in community partnership-based policing is a powerful mode
in projecting a positive image. For this purpose, the police officers involved
should be equipped with the appropriate skills and also take into account effective
problem-solving strategies. The Nepalese community members have experienced
that the police who work with communities are generally found to be more
sensitive, reasonable, polite, cooperative, friendly, and helpful than others.
They feel that those police officers who are responsible for community policing
affairs would make a greater impression if they were based within that
community. With the views to encourage these community police officers, the
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID) Police
Development Project has helped Nepal Police to develop an evaluation system and
award ‘Community Police Person’ of the year since 2004.
During
the armed conflict, the Maoists were very suspicious of the involvement of the
community members with the community centres. As community police centres
proved to be very popular, Maoists increasingly perceived them to be threats to
their interests. It was suspected that these centres were being used by the
police to gather information from local sources. Consequently, the Maoists
began to threaten all those associated with community centres, policing and to attack the centres. The Tikhedewal Community Development Centre in Lalitpur,
for example, was bombed, killing one Assistant Sub Inspector. They also attacked
and killed one Sub Inspector in the Baudha Community Police Centre in
Kathmandu. In spite of this, the majority of all local community police centres
continued to function. Since the agreement for the ceasefire and the conclusive
talks between the Maoists and the government, these repressive attacks have
stopped. Local communities are therefore again allowed to freely join community
police programs throughout the country.
Need for
reforms
In Nepal,
the establishment of community service centres usually starts with the
identification of a community’s security needs. This is done through
consultation with members of the community. At this stage, the community
members list down all their needs, including those other than security. The
police and community members then reach an agreement on a business agenda and a
workable modality. Police also work in collaboration with multiple
organizations already in place for specific problem-solving purposes. Successful
community policing needs an organizational strategy that ensures everyone
translates this philosophy into practice. It requires major changes to be
incorporated into the policing system, particularly in regard to allowing front-line
officers to be provided with greater autonomy, access to resources (which
should be mobilized at the point of service), and an ability to focus on local
problems. It also requires that the local problems identified are insightful to
all groups in society, especially those people who are particularly
disadvantaged or vulnerable. The need for public service-oriented police
services is at least reflected in one of the Police Mirrors, an annual magazine
of the Nepal Police. It reads:
It has been our professional belief that the police
service may not be considered a police service in a real sense in the absence
of a proper response to the grievances and problems of the sovereign Nepali
people, prompt necessary action, adequate counselling, and direction. In light
of this truth, it has been highly essential for us to establish ourselves as a
public service-oriented, capable, and efficient police in all respects through
our conduct and to follow the working style of democratic police in the
existing democratic system in the country.
The
above message speaks a lot about the police strategic reforms. In the past, the
actions of the police have been exploited more for the protection of the
government than to serve the interests of the people. However, the time has
changed now. Today, people demand more accountable police; hence, more stress on
this philosophy of policing. The concept and the practice of community policing
are the result of combined efforts by both communities and the police. However,
the State, as of yet, has not recognized Community-Based Policing (CBP) as an
effective method of enforcing law and order. As a consequence, this method has
not been incorporated in the national plan or in police laws. This shows a lack
of long-term vision and a failure to create a uniform national strategic
operational plan, management policy, direction, and coordination mechanism for
present and future community policing practices.
These
failures are closely tied to the attitudes and interests of high-ranking
police officers from central-level offices towards CBP. A Study Committee of
Nepal police (1997) in a review of community policing programmes documented
that the CBP could not be very successful for several reasons: First, there is
a lack of interest and confidence among high ranking police officers; Second,
there are no policy guidelines and clear cut mandates; Third, there are no
operation plans; Fourth, the police do not possess the required level of
knowledge and skills to run CBP schemes; Fifth, these programs lack resources,
both, human and material; Sixth, there is a lack of accountability on the part
of police to the community. Seventh, there are no follow-up programs to review,
evaluate, and redesign the CBP schemes in the country.
Conclusion
Community-Based
Policing (CBP) is both a philosophy and a strategy that allows the police and
community to work closely together in new ways to solve problems of crime, fear
of crime, physical and social disorder, and other neighbourhood problems. CBP
aims to empower communities to solve their own security problems. This scheme
breaks the tradition of top-down approaches to management and promotes a
bottom-up approach. CBP relies more on the devotion, motivation, commitment,
skill, knowledge, and professionalism of the police officer at the field level
rather than the rank and file of the department. Despite the numerous benefits
of CBP schemes, it is not being fully utilized in Nepal. The reasons behind
this include the continued prominence of more traditional attitudes towards
policing. With the passage of time, we must review the existing methods of
policing and redesign a more people-friendly policing system in Nepal.
Reference:
Friedmann,
Robert R. 1992. Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and
Prospects. New York: St. Martin’s Press
Fleming
& O'Reilly, 'In search of process: Community Policing in Australia',
2007, in Tom Williamson (edit), The
handbook of knowledge-based policing: Current conceptions and future
directions, 2008, published by John Wiley and Sons, 2008
Diamond
& Weiss (2009). Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance:
A Framework Document. US Department of Justice.
Sarah Lawrence and Bobby McCarthy, "What works in community policing?",
The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at the UC
Berkeley School of Law, Nov 2013.
Dr. Stefen
James Males, Amar Singh Shah, Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, 1998: Community Policing in Nepal, DFID Nepal,
Kathmandu, Nepal
Police Mirror, Vol X, pp. 21-24, 1997,
Nepal Police Headquarters, Kathmandu
Diamond & Weiss (2009). Advancing Community Policing Through Community
Governance: A Framework Document. US Department of Justice
Hesta Groenewald and Gordon Peake, 2004: "Police Reform through Community-Based Policing", International Peace Academy, New York
Wesley G. Skogan, 2005: "Community Policing" (Working Paper 30), in: Prospects and Problems in an Era of Police
Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by David Weisburd and Anthony
A. Braga, Cambridge University Press, 2005
