'Gullucracy'

The term 'Gullucracy' has been coined by some Pakistanis in the wake of video clips and images showing one Gullu Butt of Lahore, handlebar-moustache man, baton-wielding and smashing vehicles. This term is likely to make its way to the Oxford Dictionary, for which English lexicographers would certainly be thankful to us for enriching their language. Gullu Butt has earned Pakistan world-wide notoriety-he personifies violence and vandalism with police patronage, violating all norms of Rule of Law. Gullu has become iconic in confirming how our Police and their political masters use undesirable individuals for their nefarious motives.
Police in Punjab under Khadim-e-Aala (sic) has many Gullu Butts-but this particular one was caught on camera on June 17, 2014 and exposed as paid vandal of police given the task of terrifying political opponents. In a recent TV interview, Gullu Butt apologised to the nation saying that he was ashamed of his actions. Gullu Butt is not an individual. He represents a repressive structure, which those in power do not want to change for their ulterior motives and to ensure control over the system and perpetuation of their incompetent rule. Khadim-e-Aala is in power in Punjab for the last many years and keeps on paying lip-service to changing "thana [police station] culture." The fact is that he, like many other autocrats, relies on brutal police force. He would, thus, never be interested in reforming the prevalent police system.
Much has been written about failure of police reforms in Pakistan [Reforming Pakistan's Police and Law Enforcement Infrastructure: Is It Too Flawed to Fix?, Hassan Abbas, United States Institute of Peace, February 2011]. Unfortunately, our legislators have only been interested in passing (though with hesitation) stringent laws without assuring their implementation through an effective justice delivery system, without which no reforms can succeed. Higher judiciary in Pakistan behaves like a sacred cow. It is not ready to improve its delivery structures even after getting complete administrative and financial independence. The judges keep on criticising Legislature and Executive but never award exemplary punishments to police for failing to perform its duties as investigators and prosecutors as well to protect the life and property of people. Nobody debates failure of higher judiciary for its lapses. In India, the higher judiciary not only acts as watchdog of people's rights but also ensures effective delivery of justice at all levels. This is missing in Pakistan.
On April 11, 2013, six years after ushering in police reforms, the Supreme Court of India took the first step for its implementation in "letter and spirit" and asked the states to furnish within a week status of the Security Commissions, which were to be set up to insulate the police from political interference. Since the introduction of Police Order of 2002 what we have seen in Pakistan is a journey from bad to worse. This has been adequately highlighted by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in 'Police Organisation in Pakistan' [2010] and 'Reforming Pakistan's Criminal Justice System', International Crisis Group Report, December 2010.
HRCP & CHRI believe that democratic nations need democratic policing, which gives practical meaning to the promise of good governance and is applicable in any context-rich or poor, large or small, diverse or homogenous. Critical to the success of democratic policing is the principle that the police should be held accountable: not just by government, but by a wider network of agencies and organisations, working on behalf of the interests of the people, within a human rights framework. Our provincial governments, on the contrary, have failed to hold local government elections in violation of Article 140A of the Constitution to avoid empowerment of masses and making police accountable to them.
CHRI's Police Reforms Programme is aimed at meeting increased demand for and achievement of police accountability throughout the Commonwealth. The police reforms programme targets policy makers, police organisations, activists at the grass-root level, civil society groups, the media and the general public to further its aims for reform and the implementation of democratic policing. It seeks to do this through a combination of advocacy, education, research and networking. Democratic policing is both a process and an outcome. The democratic values lay down a sound foundation for the development of democratic policing.
A democratic police organisation is one that is accountable to the law and not law unto itself, is accountable to democratic government structures and the community, is transparent in its activities and gives top operational priority to protecting the safety and rights of individuals and private groups, protects human rights, provides society with professional services and is representative of the community it serves. Pakistan is badly lagging behind in achieving these goals as pointed out in 'Stabilising Pakistan through Police Reform', published in July 2012 by Asia Society Independent Commission on Pakistan Police Reform. The report finds that Pakistan's efforts to combat crime and terrorist activities are being overmatched by the innovation and agility of criminal networks and terrorist organisations. Without comprehensive reform of the legal framework governing police action, the police force as an institution, Pakistan's law enforcement strategy, and interagency and international co-ordination, Pakistan's progress towards political stability and economic security will be limited. According to the report, a lack of resources, poor training, insufficient and outmoded equipment, and political manipulation pose difficulties to the police force as it works to maintain law and order. The report explores aspects that are crucial for reforms improving police technology, personnel, training, and intelligence capability.
During the last many decades in Pakistan various commissions and committees were formed to reform the colonial Police Act of 1861. On August 14, 2002, Police Order 2002 was enacted to make police professional, autonomous and democratically accountable. New institutions of public oversight and accountability of police at district, provincial and national levels were introduced. These included Public Safety Commissions and Police Complaint Commissions. It was a positive effort, but failed due to resistance from bureaucracy and politicians. Police Order 2002 was not implemented in letter and spirit-its provisions regarding Safety Commissions meant to be safeguard against abuse of power were also not implemented. The grievances of the masses remained unaddressed as there was no follow up of complaints-even no steps were taken to ensure the participation of people in these bodies. A number of amendments introduced to Police Order 2002 between 2004 and 2007 diluted its key provisions. These amendments affected the autonomy of police operations, reduced the role of the oversight bodies and reintroduced political interference. After the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010, police became a provincial subject. At present, amended Police Order 2002 is applicable in two provinces, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whereas Sindh and Balochistan have brought back the Police Act of 1861. This is, in a nutshell, sordid story of police reforms in Pakistan.
In India, Justice Verma Committee Report on Police Reforms, submitted on January 23, 2013, after citing various Supreme Court judgements where police reforms were emphasised, eg, Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 1, noted that National Police Commission, National Human Rights Commission, Law Commission, Ribeiro Committee, Padmanabhaiah Committee and Malimath Committee all broadly came to the conclusion of urgent need for police reforms with agreement on the key areas of focus that cover the following aspects:
1. State Security Commission at State level;
2. Transparent procedure for the appointment of Police Chief and the desirability of giving him a minimum fixed tenure;
3. Separation of investigation from law and order; and
4. A new Police Act which should reflect the democratic aspirations of the people.
We also need the above reforms if we want Gullucracy to meet its end in Pakistan, replaced with democratic policing as highlighted by Asia Society Independent Commission on Pakistan Police Reform, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and International Crisis Group in their above cited reports.
(The writers, tax lawyers and partners in law firm, HUZAIMA & IKRAM, are Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences)