With a history of authoritarianism and centralised power trust in the Ethiopian police is often low. Community Policing seeks to address these issues but often runs up against its own obstacles, writes Paul Jackson, Dawit Afework Habetegabrael  and Demelash Kassaye.

The authority and legitimacy of the police in communities is not automatic. Community policing is an approach to overcome mistrust by working with communities to build trust and to make policing more effective and more aligned with community needs. In post-authoritarian states where the police have been part of a repressive regime mistrust can be deeply embedded. Working with communities also seeks to overcome this fear of the police.

Increased community involvement helps reduce the politicisation of policing. It does so by addressing the failures of conventional police models whilst also stressing the value of partnering with communities in reducing crime and increasing public safety. Proximity to the public is effective in communicating intelligence, reducing tensions, and enhancing police accountability. It also helps to broaden the definition of policing to incorporate fear of crime, community safety and perceptions of security alongside law enforcement.

Community policing has a mixed history in Africa. There have been issues around multiple definitions, interpretations and motivations leading to confusion over ownership of the process. There are always questions surrounding who constitutes ‘the local’, and which community is represented within policing systems. There is also evidence that some police see this approach as an opportunity for bribe-seeking and misbehaviour.

In situations with historically centralised police, there is a constant dialogue between state control seeing community involvement as improving intelligence and effectiveness, and the actual community which may see community policing as a way of directing the force to address their needs and concerns.

Policing Ethiopia

Ethiopia has a history of authoritarianism and antagonism between the centre and the hinterlands. This increases the value of Community Policing in building trust but also makes the process more difficult. The 2020 Ethiopian Police Doctrine specifies that the police should ‘demilitarise, depoliticise, decentralise and democratise’ through community inclusion, and Community Policing practices began in 2002. but what does this look like at the local level?

Community policing programs (Neighbourhood Watch Programs, beat definition, and demarcation activities) have enhanced community agency and collective effectiveness. However, this is balanced against political interference in local processes and the use of local meetings to silence critical voices.

Pros and cons of CP in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian experience of community policing has not been an entirely happy one. Community policing involves a significant change in attitude, not least amongst police officers themselves, and this has been more difficult than initially expected. A shift from traditional to community policing is challenging and this has not been helped by a dearth of research evidence in many countries undertaking community policing programs in Africa.

This lack of research is particularly clear regarding the politics of communities themselves, where ‘community’ is frequently treated as singular and monolithic rather than multilayered and political. There may be different versions of ‘local’ with different groups seeking different relationships with the police.

This speaks to the question of who, exactly, is being policed. Clearly much policing is carried out on behalf of the state and the state represents specific interest groups. Community policing puts strong pressure on the police themselves to be impartial because lack of impartiality undermines trust.

There can be tension within the police between partnering with the community and exercising control. In practice, both elements co-exist within community policing. Many police see themselves as educating communities as much as working with them, particularly in relation to the constitution.

A big change in Community Policing is that it is often done through negotiation rather than force. Also, some of the practices the police encourage may be more progressive than local practices, particularly in relation to gender and early marriage.  

It would be a mistake, however, to write off community policing in Ethiopia just as an extension of central power. There are multiple sources of power within the system. Whilst community policing is centrally led, it also recognises local political and justice structures, which vary considerably across the country but frequently enjoy local legitimacy. Improved relationships between police and the community have also certainly led to reduced crime and increased reporting.

Many citizens also feel that despite the top-down context of policing they have agency in policing local issues. The neighbourhood meetings attended by citizens, local politicians and police officers are seen as vehicles for citizens to raise issues and decide how they might engage or collaborate. Dialogue is important for both the police and local communities and is seen as a way to value community knowledge, priorities such as night patrols and also the demarcation of police beats. Localities are not, however, monolithic units and some have their own political structures, power rivalries and risk of capture by specific groups, some of which may be institutionalised, such as chiefs in rural areas.

Continuous dialogue

The desire to involve local communities leads to a policing paradox where the central state still seeks to control populations but also tries to improve its image of the police and by extension improve citizen’s relationship with the state itself. Given the role of the police, this question perhaps cannot be resolved. It may be that community policing will remain in a constantly changing state of flux between the central and the local.

An emphasis on dialogue of course means a continually negotiated boundary between effective policing and surveillance and control. What this continuous balance might suggest is that community policing itself provides a framework that sits alongside conventional approaches and provides a space for agency for local communities without providing additional risk to formal policing structures.

The terrain for the contest between central aims of control and local aims of inclusion is very much still tilted in favour of central power structures, but it is interesting that despite the frustrations several community members felt that they were able to exercise some degree of agency within these limits.

Photo credit: ODI Global used with permission CC BY-NC 2.0