The Politics of Police Reform
The Politics of Police Reform
复制标题
警察改革的政治
DOI：
10.1093/oso/9780190861490.001.0001
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Marat
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Marat
俄罗斯有句谚语：”警察是社会的镜子。“其要点是，每个社会都在允许自己被监管的范围内被监管。集中控制，但在他们的范围分散，警察在结构，指挥系统以及他们与后苏联国家政治精英的关系方面非常相似-他们也仍然是改革最少的后共产主义机构之一。作为一个强大的国家机关，苏联式的军事化警察一直抵制变革，尽管在整个政治背景下发生了民主变革，包括多轮竞争性选举和日益壮大的公民社会。在民主国家，公民和国家就改革达成共识是可能的，但在专制国家，这一点要困难得多。在后苏联国家，这种讨论通常发生在政治精英和强大的非国家行为体之间，如犯罪集团和民族主义民族团体，而不是更广泛的公民。即使在自1991年以来举行了一轮或多轮民主选举的国家，被赋予权力的公民和政治家也没有重新谈判国家警察和胁迫社会的方式。相反，在许多后苏联国家，警察职能已经扩大，为执政的政治精英的利益服务。改革后苏联的警察部队需要什么？这本书探讨了警察有意义的转型可能成功的条件，以及何时会失败。不同于传统的解释，警察仅仅是一个强制机构，这本书定义为一个媒介，国家社会共识的限制，国家的合法使用暴力。因此，它认为警务不是衡量国家胁迫社会能力的一种方式，而是反映了一个由随意互动和政治结构网络联系在一起的复杂社会。这本书比较了乌克兰、格鲁吉亚、吉尔吉斯斯坦、哈萨克斯坦和塔吉克斯坦的改革努力，发现自下而上的公众动员很可能出现在变革性暴力事件之后--在这一事件中，通常的警务模式被前所未有的针对弱势个体的暴行打断。最终，警察改革的政治研究的各种途径，以改变如何通过警务国家与社会。
There is a Russian saying that" police mirror society." The gist of this is that every society is policed to the extent that it allows itself to be policed. Centralized in control but decentralized in their reach, the police are remarkably similar in structure, chain of command, and their relationships with the political elite across post-Soviet nations--they also remain one of the least reformed post-communist institutions. As a powerful state organ, the Soviet-style militarized police have resisted change despite democratic transformations in the overall political context, including rounds of competitive elections and growing civil society. While consensus between citizens and the state about reform may be possible in democratic nations, it is considerably more difficult to achieve in authoritarian states. Across post-Soviet countries, such discussions most often occur between political elites and powerful non-state actors, such as criminal syndicates and nationalistic ethnic groups, rather than the wider citizenry. Even in countries where one or more rounds of democratic elections have taken place since 1991, empowered citizens and politicians have not renegotiated the way states police and coerce society. On the contrary, in many post-Soviet countries, police functions have expanded to serve the interests of the ruling political elites. What does it take to reform a post-Soviet police force? This book explores the conditions in which a meaningful transformation of the police is likely to succeed and when it will fail. Departing from the conventional interpretation of the police as merely an institution of coercion, this book defines it as a medium for state-society consensus on the limits of the state's legitimate use of violence. It thus considers policing not as a way to measure the state's capacity to coerce society, but rather as a reflection of a complex society bound together by a web of casual interactions and political structures. The book compares reform efforts in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan, finding that bottom-up public mobilization is likely to emerge in the aftermath of transformative violence--an incident when the usual patterns of policing are interrupted with unprecedented brutality against vulnerable individuals. Ultimately, The Politics of Police Reform examines the various pathways to transforming how the state relates to society through policing.