The Police Role in National Elections

Mar 15, 2015 News

---

By Dale Andrews
The conduct of the upcoming National and Regional Elections will place the entire operations of the Guyana Police Force under the intense glare of local, regional and international bodies whose raison d’être is to focus on the performance of credibility-challenged police forces operating in more or less democratic cultures.
The decisions made and actions taken at this juncture will help to define the future of the organization and its role as the foremost law enforcement body in the nation.
This article examines the role(s) of police services at elections and the issues that the GPF is likely to face in the near future; how these are resolved will give an indication of possible changes that might accompany reforms.
First we should take a brief look at what training the police receive in preparation of their role. Just last week, Police Commissioner Seelall Persaud sought to assure the public that the force is prepared for the worst case scenario. He said that he has been preparing for the challenge ever since the date for the elections was announced by President Donald Ramotar, earlier this year.
“As matter of fact since Parliament was prorogued we were preparing for a lot of the side impacts of an election,” Persaud had explained in response to journalists following his swearing-in.
“We started retraining on public order issues, election campaign issues and so on…so our ranks could have an understanding of what the law is and what they are required to do when they get on the ground,” the Commissioner added.
Up to now we have seen highly publicized crowd control training in all police divisions indicative of a sense of anticipation probably with experiences of past reactions to elections results as a significant factor.
The current concern seems not to be with the possibility of election fraud, but with potential public disturbances arising out of the conduct of the electoral process. But at this stage it is apposite to consider the strong possibility that the usual suspects may not end up targets for police rubber bullets and tear smoke this time around.
What would be of interest to the populace as well as election observers is the type of training provided to the disciplined services that enhances their professionalism and sensitivity during elections.
A review of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s copyrighted Guide on Action Points for the Prevention and Mitigation of Election-related Violence (Stockholm, September 2013) a support document to the Electoral Risk Management Tool, highlights several police training curriculum topics including:
(a) the nature of the electoral legislation and an overview of the electoral process; (b) the role of the police in supporting the democratic process; (c) human rights issues in relation to the police’s role; (d) the police’s role in an election; (e) security objectives and strategy in relation to the election; (f) the standards of professional, neutral and non-intimidating conduct to be upheld by police forces during the election; (g) contact mechanisms and liaison details (on an as-needed basis) between the electoral commission and police forces; (h) details of specific offences against electoral laws; and (i) details of other laws such as those regarding public gatherings that will have an impact on police planning.
In particular, training should focus on an enhanced understanding of the roles and responsibilities of electoral actors, electoral offences and professional standards.
At this stage it would be of great comfort for all law-abiding voters and observers to be reassured that the GPF is cognizant of the above listed areas, and has taken steps to ensure that all pertinent information is disseminated throughout the organization.  It would also be helpful for the credibility of the Force administration if it establishes and maintains a posture of absolute political neutrality while eschewing any action that could be construed as intimidatory against parties and voters.
The police (and army) must commit to overseeing free and fair elections while helping in the maintenance of peaceful non-threatening environment. The role of the police is to keep the peace and not support the partisan efforts of others bent on disrupting public order. The police should also not be perceived to be helping one political party at the expense of its opponent(s).
At the same time, all political parties must do their utmost to convince their constituents of their duty to vote in accordance with the rules.  Moreover, wild, reckless and inciting statements should be avoided by political representatives during the campaign.  Every voter must undertake to prove that the Guyanese people are stronger and wiser this time around, and will not be falling for any ridiculously blasphemous or slanderous utterances.
The foregoing is not intended to make light of the police responsibility to ensure effective policing before, during and after the elections.
The GPF will have to establish a command structure with officers being responsible for: (1) developing strategy and retaining strategic oversight and overall command throughout; (2) developing and implementing the tactical response in line with command strategy; (3) resources, and functional or geographical responsibilities related to the tactical plan. A single point of contact should also be identified as the liaison between the GPF and GECOM, preferably in all policing divisions or electoral districts.
It would be foolhardy to believe that the police by themselves will have the capability to handle all aspects of elections duties. This observation brings into focus the need for partnerships with others in the security sector, and the activating of auxiliary bodies.  This need, however, must not ignore partners’ priorities and availability of resources while recognizing that early engagement and clear communication and ownership of agreed actions will ensure that everyone involved in the joint planning for policing the elections is aware of their role in the general operational framework.
One problematic issue is the practice of using community policing groups during elections and which – it has been argued – comprise of supporters of the ruling party.  This practice if it is allowed to continue for these elections will have to be managed very carefully if we are to avoid claims of electoral malpractice.
Because of the debilitating nature of Guyanese politics, it is an imperative that in joint operational planning there should be a sharing of knowledge and information; an awareness of political sensitivities and an assessment of the potential risks.
What this means is that policing decision-making is organised and informed by issues and stakeholders’ expectations under active consideration.  Chief among the latter would be the expectation that the GPF would have assessed the risks that are impediments to violence-free polls, and have devised mitigation strategies to counter them.
Furthermore, reference to the debrief report following the 2011 elections which reviewed the event, the systems in place, and which identified areas for improvement or an alternative approach, could assist greatly in preparing the risk assessment. Indeed the general public anticipates that many of the issues raised in this article would have occupied the attention of the just concluded Annual Police Officers’ Conference and will be a significant feature in the conference report. (To be continued)

---

---