Zeshan Haider
A police officer who is exhausted, poorly equipped and working under constant pressure is not in the best position to provide the quality of public service that society expects.
Therefore, improving police performance also requires improving the working conditions of police personnel.
The Police Order 2002 generated considerable debate about police reform and introduced important principles concerning the organization and functioning of the police. However, the country has struggled to maintain the continuity and consistency required for comprehensive police reform. Various governments have announced measures and initiatives, but lasting institutional transformation requires sustained political and administrative commitment.
We must now move beyond temporary campaigns and cosmetic changes.
A genuine reform agenda should ensure that police stations have transparent operational budgets; investigating officers receive legitimate travelling and investigation expenses on time; vehicles and communication equipment are properly maintained; modern technology is used in investigation and crime prevention; recruitment and promotions are based on merit; police personnel receive appropriate training; and effective mechanisms exist for dealing with misconduct.
At the same time, citizens must be provided with accessible mechanisms for lodging complaints against police officials, while police officers must also be protected from false accusations and undue pressure.
This is where the role of parliamentary and assembly committees becomes particularly important.
A Privileges Committee or any other competent forum should certainly question police officers where there are credible complaints or allegations of negligence. But such proceedings should also examine the institutional circumstances behind the problem.
If a police station is accused of poor performance, the committee should ask not only, “Who is responsible?” but also, “What resources were available?”
If an investigating officer failed to pursue a case effectively, the inquiry should determine not only whether there was negligence but also whether the officer had the necessary manpower, transport, funds, training and technical support. If complaints of corruption arise at a checkpoint, action should certainly be taken against those found responsible. But the broader policing system should also be examined to determine whether proper supervision, transparent procedures and effective monitoring mechanisms are in place. Accountability should therefore lead to reform—not merely punishment. We must also remember that the police are not a homogeneous institution. There are certainly individuals within the department whose conduct deserves criticism and, where necessary, disciplinary or legal action. But there are also officers and personnel who demonstrate exceptional courage, honesty and dedication. Many police officers have lost their lives while protecting the public. Their sacrifices should not be forgotten merely because the department as a whole faces criticism.
The dignity of a police officer and the rights of a citizen are not contradictory. In fact, they are complementary. A citizen needs protection from police misconduct, while a police officer needs protection from political interference, inadequate resources, unfair treatment and unjustified public humiliation. A modern system of policing must protect both.
The ultimate objective should be to create a police station where a citizen can walk in without fear, register a complaint without paying a bribe, receive respectful treatment and expect action according to law.
At the same time, the police officer working inside that station should have the resources, training, authority and professional independence required to perform his duties effectively.
This is what genuine police reform should mean. Therefore, police officers should certainly be questioned in Privileges Committees. They should be required to explain their decisions, and negligence or misconduct should be dealt with according to law. But committees should also ask some equally important questions:
What resources were provided to the police station? Were the investigating officers given the necessary funds and transport? Are police personnel receiving appropriate training and welfare facilities? Are promotions based on merit? Are police officers able to perform their duties without political pressure? And perhaps the most important question: What institutional reforms are necessary to ensure that the same complaint does not arise again?
If we begin looking for answers to these questions, we may discover that some problems cannot be solved merely by changing an officer. They require changes in the system itself.
The rule of law is not the sole responsibility of the police. Politicians, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the media, civil society and citizens all have a role to play in creating a lawful and orderly society.
The police certainly need reform. But police reform should not be reduced to criticism of individual officers or occasional disciplinary proceedings. It must be a comprehensive effort to build a professional, adequately resourced, technologically equipped, politically neutral and accountable institution.
In the end, the message is simple:
Hold the police accountable—but give them the resources to perform.
Demand that they obey the law—but protect them from political pressure.
Question misconduct—but do not forget the sacrifices of those who have given their lives in the line of duty. A strong police force is not merely a government department. It is one of the most visible manifestations of the state’s authority, the rule of law and the protection of citizens. Pakistan does not need a police force that is merely powerful. It needs a police force that is professional, impartial, adequately resourced, publicly accountable and firmly bound by the law. Because policing will not improve merely by reprimanding police officers. It will improve when we reform the system in which those officers are required to work.
Concluded
