Policing History: The Official Discourse and Organizational Memory of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
by Aogan Mulcahy
The two themes are evident in the RUC's response to the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland (the Patten Commission) that was instituted as part of the 1998 Good Friday political settlement. Shortly after the agreement was reached, the staunchly pro-Unionist newspaper, the Daily Telegraph (22 April 1998) published an interview with the RUC Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan. Carrying a front page headline 'Don't weaken us, says RUC chief' the interview amounted to 'an impassioned plea for his force to be preserved' (p.1) Flanagan said that he was 'confident that the independent commission into the RUC's future would conclude that it was the finest police force in the world.' The title of the interview 'Don't weaken us' - expressed the RUC's view that the reform debate ran the risk of 'fundamentally undermining' the RUC and that the commission itself was 'brought into being for political reasons'. In addition to this interview, the Daily Telegraph's other coverage of the RUC in that issue included a double page spread describe 'the human cost of the RUC's fight against terror' that listed every RUC officer killed during the conflict, with accompanying photos for almost all of them (as well as an interview with the widow of one RUC officer killed by the IRA). These articles cumulatively articulate many significant aspects many significant aspects of the RUC's official discourse: the RUC's commitment to the community; the sacrifice that demonstrates the depth of that commitment; the view that the policing debate is politically motivated; that reforms represent 'concessions'; and that reforms would 'weaken' the RUC. They denounce the prospect of substantial reforms as an attack on the RUC's very history.
This approach was again evident when the Patten Commission published its report in September 1999 (Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland 1999) The Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) leader David Trimble, described the report as the 'most shoddy piece of work I have seen in my entire life' claiming instead that 'the only fundamental change needed to the RUC was the recruitment of many more Catholic officers' (Irish times 10 September 1999) Other UUP politicians also criticised the 'republican Patten report' for its 'scant and fleeting' acknowledgement of RUC officers' sacrifice (Irish times 15 October 1999). In addition to various 'Save the RUC' rallies in Northern Ireland a 'Defend the RUC' campaign associated with the Daily Telegraphy was set up to thwart the 'great betrayal' of the Commission's proposals (see http.www.defendtheruc.org.uk/).
Yet despite this vigorous response from some quarters of unionism, it is nevertheless significant that the report explicitly avoided discussion of the controversies around which so much nationalist/republican opposition to the RUC is articulated (such as allegations of a 'shoot to kill' policy and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries). Consideration of such issues, the Commission claimed was beyond its remit.
We were not charged with a quasi-legal investigation of the past. If there is a case for such inquiries, it is up to government to appoint them, not for us to rewrite our terms of reference (para1.6)
The Commission's decision to outline the framework for a 'new beginning' for policing in Northern Ireland without seeking to lay bare its past is not a trivial matter. As Bierne notes 'the failure to tackle past human rights abuses (by RUC officers) - and to root out specific abusers - may be seen to leave serious wrongdoers in place' 1999.4). The Commission's reticence in this respect (quite aside from the issue of its exact remit) may well be a pragmatic response to the political difficulties of attempting to address this issue, but if that is so then it is an apt reminder of the simultaneous fragility and resilience of history even (or perhaps especially) when it gets unmentioned.
It is not my intention to suggest that a preoccupation (silent or otherwise)
with history is a feature of the RUC alone. Other police forces also deploy
evocative imagery (such as the English 'bobby' or the Canadian 'Mountie')
to bolster support, reaffirm the force's collective identity and maintain
organisational legitimacy. While such iconography is a key resource for
asserting the normalcy of many police forces, for those shrouded in controversy
the significance of promoting a discourse of normality and beneficence is
greatly increased. Indeed, the frequency with which its senior officers
describe the RUC as 'the best force in the world' suggests that image-management
is particularly important in such contested settings as Northern Ireland.
But just as the potential rewards of an unblemished history are significant,
so too are the dangers. In terms of the RUC's official discourse, the most
evident danger is the inhibitory impact it has on institutional reflexivity,
specially the capacity to recognise and acknowledge that among certain sections
of the Northern Ireland public, policing itself has been viewed as a major
contributing factor to the conflict. |
