Developing public trust in law enforcement agencies
Gayane Hovhakimyan, Armenia
The Armenian public sees law enforcement agencies as non-transparent and untrustworthy. This perception is inherited from Soviet times, when these agencies applied the full totalitarian and bureaucratic power of the state to citizens. The system was utterly corrupt and the rule of law was undermined by officials.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union Armenia has pursued reforms of the system of law enforcement, involving fundamental changes at all levels:
1. At the legislative level, changes are based on international norms and, in particular, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The whole package of new legislation provides the basis for implementing the new policy. However, since this is insufficient in itself to realize the government’s aim, it needs to be accompanied by other changes.
2. New institutions and mechanisms have been set up within law enforcement agencies, as well as inspections and independent monitoring bodies. In addition to internal changes, the establishment of the office of the independent ombudsman has assisted these reforms through independent and impartial monitoring of citizens’ petitions.
3. Law enforcement agencies have adopted a new attitude to the mass media and general public. Secrecy is giving way to open and transparent cooperation. The gradual growth of NGO activities is critical to developing cooperation and achieving effective partnership.
4. Training of law enforcement officials. The human factor is very important to law enforcement and officials have a crucial role in reforming the system and changing its public image. Consequently, considerable emphasis has been placed on training staff in the principles, standards and implementation of law enforcement, and in hiring young people with professional expertise and democratic values.
However, despite these reforms public perceptions of law enforcement in the country have not changed significantly. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which are unfamiliarity with the new law enforcement structures, and anachronistic perceptions, stereotypes and relationships inherited from the Soviet era.
More time is needed to create a new framework of relationships between the public and law enforcement agencies. That is why the example of countries with long traditions of democracy is valuable in helping to promote reforms in Armenia. The British system is especially instructive and relevant. Its experience, formed over a very long time, is based on a number of core principles relating to the rule of law:
1. Transparency, whether in a police station, prison, prosecutor’s office or the justice system more generally.
2. Judicial independence. The idea of restorative justice is key to implementing judgements.
3. Impartiality. This is not a merely theoretical concept, but key to granting equal rights to all citizens and combating systemic and bureaucratic corruption.
4. Civic participation at various levels. Different committees and experts work on law enforcement legislation. Voluntary organizations have direct access to parliamentarians to express their views on legislation and can lobby on behalf of different groups in society and the public interest.
5. Shared responsibility. The failure of law enforcement in a given case is seen as having wider societal consequences. This encourages law enforcement agencies not to hide their problems but to discuss them openly.
6. Feedback on law enforcement. Free and open mass media not only disseminate information but also scrutinize (and criticize) the actions of law enforcement agencies. This professional feedback puts pressure on these agencies to improve their performance and respond to the needs of the public.
7. Public awareness of law enforcement is vital to establishing a good environment for agency activities. Measures include educational programmes on TV and introducing law enforcement as a subject in the curricula of schools and other educational institutions.
8. Accountability. Law enforcement agencies are accountable not only to their superiors, but above all to the public. This would facilitate relations of trust between them.
The British experience serves as an excellent model for emerging democracies. In order to translate this experience to the specific case of Armenia, we need to study the model itself. Direct study visits are especially effective in communicating knowledge. It is important, too, that every Armenian official understand their role in effecting change; the new image of law enforcement as integral to a safe society and the rule of law relies on everyday work within the system.
At the same time, British experts should be invited to Armenia for seminars and conferences and to give training. This could involve different ministries and agencies – the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs – either together or individually. At the inter-governmental level, departments could work with each other within the framework of a unified programme, involving the prosecutor’s office, police and judges.
Both these strategies would be useful in applying the British experience of law enforcement to Armenia, thereby increasing public trust in the system. What is essential above all is an enhanced effort to achieve concrete results and develop a system of law enforcement based on democratic principles. Given political will and civic enthusiasm, Armenia can create a favourable framework within which the norms and attributes of British democracy can be applied to law enforcement in Armenia.