Plan deserves our analysis
From NEWS LETTER September 10th, 1999
THIS morning there is considerable disappointment in the unionist community
at the outcome of the review into policing, to the extent that many people
are wondering who exactly Chris Patten listened to when he was drawing conclusions
from his months of wide-ranging public consultations. The anticipated changes
to the names, emblems and traditions of the RUC were always bound to evoke
an emotive response among serving officers and the families of those who
have been killed and maimed in the battle against terrorism. That had been
made clear. One of the most serious effects of the report has been to demoralise
officers who stood in the front lines in that dangerous conflict, and who
as a consequence saw the lives of many colleagues savagely ended or destroyed
by enemies of the state. Now they are being told that people who represent
their attackers will have a significant say in their futures. It is a chilling
prospect which must be resisted with every available device within the law.
Small wonder, then, that emotions are running high; small wonder that there
is a deep sense of betrayal among uniformed officers who believe they have
become sacrificed on the altar of political expedience. And understandably,
their anger and disgust is also evident in the wider unionist community,
which has become increasingly perturbed by what appears to be a never-ending
assault on the things they hold dear. Mr Patten was, of course, anxious
to put across the point that his report is apolitical, but here, the subject
of policing is unavoidably political. The review is essentially part of
a political agreement, and when considering the unionist response, it is
necessary to remember that it came about largely as a result of nationalist
and republican pressure. Had the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement been
honoured by republican and loyalist terror organisations in the way that
most people who voted for it envisaged, there would be more public confidence
in the determination of everyone involved in the process to build a peaceful
and stable future, free from violence and the threat of it. In such a climate,
many of the recommendations would be more acceptable, and from a pragmatic
point of view, would make more sense. As things stand, the prospect of demoralising
the only police force we have, and reorganising it in a way that is not
guaranteed to enhance the fight against crime and terrorism, seems premature.
Worse still, as politicians begin to get their teeth into the real meat
of the document, fears are arising that the proposed changes will actually
inhibit this ability, as well as opening up a tradesman's entrance through
which some of society's most dubious characters could pass. It is also unfortunate
that after 30 years of sacrifice, the RUC has not been afforded the opportunity
to prove itself capable of policing a normal society in a normal fashion.
Yet even in the fragile peace which now exists, it has demonstrated, under
its present Chief Constable, a willingness and desire to respond positively.
The percentage of Catholic recruits has risen as a result. Areas previously
out-of-bounds to the RUC have been opened up in a constructive fashion,
thanks to the co-operation between officers and local communities, in spite
of Sinn Fein's obvious displeasure. It is patently obvious that the RUC
should have been allowed more time to adapt to changing circumstances before
such far-reaching conclusions on its suitability and acceptability were
drawn. Yes, there is deep and understandable pain in the unionist community.
But the review also presents momentous challenges to the nationalist population
and its leaders. The pain inflicted by the report will come to nought if
its ambitions cannot be realised because of nationalist rejection of a "transformed"
police service. Mr Patten has effectively thrown down the gauntlet to those
who cried for reforms as the price for supporting the Province's police
service. Their reaction over the coming weeks will provide a measure of
the report's success in ending the controversial debate for once and for
all. Yet despite the report's obvious defects, it would be wrong at this
early stage to appeal to the wider population to either support or reject
the totality of its recommendations. |
