Governance of public police in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands the recent police reform (2012) seperated authority (gezag) and management & control (beheer) in a sense that while authority over public police is still in hands of the Mayor (local level) - management was given to the central level (Minister of Security and Justice and his 1 Police Chief installed next to him). Can this duo steer in an objective way, without too much lobbying and political influences? Together they decide on all financial & management (police capacity and ICT included) matters for the whole country; this means they have a centralised and tremendously huge impact on local policing. Is this what we want in a country known for it's tolerance and long tradition of Community Oriented Policing? Indeed the Mayor of each municipality can still fundamentally rule over police matters concerning security within her/his territory (Law on Municipalities & Police Law), but has no say in capacity division (police personel allocated to fulfill the tasks) nor in financial funding. How can one rule or govern without having portfolio responsabilities (beheer)? Can the local triangle (Mayor, police chief and public prosecution) (driehoeksoverleg) still be the place of negotiation while at the same time this triangle has no say over budget division? Of course rich municipalities and/or municipalities where the local Mayor has good relations with the regional Mayor and with the police, if priorities have to be tackled and special police projects are presented, there will be (local) money to pay for them. But what with smaller communities that are counting on the Minister for funding? Or disturbed relations?
What is the exact position of the regional Mayor in regard to the local Mayor within his/her territory? As the 'Safety and Security Plans' (SSP) with fixed priorities for police are a product of this 'regional Mayor' & police, how can this plans be executed by police while financial allocation is centrally steered and managed? And what is the appropriate place for accountability on the execution of these Plans? The local Mayor? The regional Mayor? The Minister? The local police chief? Or the central police chief? And, finally, are the broad geographical territories the public police has to cover not in contradiction with the wish to be locally oriented fulfilling a community oriented police strategy? Or, finally, is this COP philosophy really outdated in the Netherlands and are we striving for a crime fighting model of a military-bureaucratic model that we left long time ago?
Answer in Dutch are also welcomed, best practices from other countries are most warmly welcomed. Thank you in advance!
In the structure you are describing is strikingly similar to the American system. Policy makers (elected officials) and the bureaucracy (administrators) is divided. In this system you would require significant legal barriers with the political level regarding lobbying and campaign donations. This ABSOLUTELY leads to corruption. For the administrative level, a well structured civil service (merit system) is necessary for professional public administration. The role here is not to make policy, though they do make some policy for implementation and other rules, they make policy recommendations. In the American system we see the biggest advocates for the people regarding public services has oddly become the bureaucracy and not the elected representatives. This do, I believe, to two issues. A highly professional bureaucracy with high ethical standards, and the politicians with almost no limit for lobbyist access and donations. Today in America over 60% of all federal and state legislation is actually written by special interest groups and industry. A best practice is to avoid this mistake.
I agree with Paul's comments and would only add that the greater control over funding at the national level, the greater the influence on local police policy, actions, and procedures. In the US, 'grants' and other federal funding for state and local police, theoretically under the direction of local elected officials, exert a large measure of influence, if not control in the technical sense, over sub-national police.
My experience has demonstrated that the more fragmentation that appears in public services, the greater the potential for problems. We are experiencing this on a national scale in the UK with ever greater degrees of molecular management, separation between private and public services and the responsibility for service quality unclear. Disaggregation of the public sector has tended towards disintegration
Dear Chris,
I wish what you tell us was true, but it is not that simple. The 'library' does not provide any interesting answer, as you see I publish and I read, so that is not the point. The goal of launching this debate was to get to know other opinions of interesting scholars in the field, so thank you Sue, William and Paul James for your interesting contributions!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication