Comparing Nations Civil Order Control

Civil Order Control Civil order control has become a necessary aspect of modern day law enforcement. Inherent in civil order control, however, are a number of problems that have to be addressed in order for it to be effectively implemented, such as societal attitudes, law enforcement norms, and so on. As Roberson and Das (2015) point, in civil order control “there is often a strong political component to the activities being controlled” (p. 72).

The reason for this is that whenever a situation occurs that is a threat to civil order, it is basically a threat to the government of the society as well. That is why throughout history, any type of civil order control has been met with controversy—whether it was a workers’ strike or protest being put down by military force or a holdout of a religious sect like the Branch Davidians in Waco being smoked out by the ATF. This paper will discuss how the U.S.

deals with these problems and compare and contrast these approaches to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Japan, England, and China. It will also discuss the factors that contribute to these similarities. Civil order control in the U.S., like that in England, China, Japan or China, is based on the need for the government to prevent a situation from escalating and to restore order. A number of agencies may take part in this type of enforcement.

In England in the 1980 Liverpool and London riots, tear gas was deployed to dispense with and deter crowds from gathering and swarming. This was the first time the police had ever used this method of dealing with crowds (Kennedy, 2011). The U.S. like England uses the civil police model, which consists of decentralized police organizations, which have special units available for handling civil order control.

However, for larger issues, like the protest at Kent State in the 1970s, the National Guard can be called in to restore order—though that move ended up costing four people their lives on that occasion (Means, 2016). The difference between the U.S. and the UK when it comes to civil order control is the extent to which law enforcement agents are armed: the U.S.

tends to be more heavily armed and focuses on crime control while UK officers tend to focus on maintaining the peace (Roberson & Das, 2015). But otherwise, they are similar, which is appropriate since the U.S. system is based on English law. The U.S. can call in the military and even declare martial law if needed, in which case the military is used under the direction of state. The U.S. Northern Command is the military agency through which local and state commands will call in for military assistance.

In Saudi Arabia, there is the Islamic religious police, which enforces Islamic laws. The KSA will issue a fatwa against protests, as it did during the 2011-12 protests that rocked the KSA. The Ministry of Interior is responsible for providing security forces in such cases, so the KSA’s approach to civil order control is somewhat more centralized than in the U.S. or the UK, though both of the latter Western nations will also use centralized means of control in order to restore order when necessary.

The KSA will use deadly force to disperse crowds and did so during the 2011-12 riots, killing many protestors and prompting calls of human rights abuses from international watchdog groups. However, because the KSA is used to being hit with these accusations and is in good standing with the U.S. through the petro-dollar scheme, it goes largely held unaccountable on the world stage and the KSA has no sense of Western values when it comes to using force to restore order. When the U.S.

uses force through the military as it did at Kent State, it becomes a very controversial affair and can actually lead to more riots and protests and civil unrest. In China, the system is similar to that of Saudi Arabia: civil order control is very centralized, with the People’s Party overseeing this type of response. Force is often used. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests were put down by way of military force.

Coercion, suppression of dissident groups, censorship and the new social credit system, which gives every citizen a social credit score that lets them know their every move is being watched and that prevents them from enjoying certain liberties (like flying) if their score is too low because of some violation against the laws of the state (Werth, 2018). These are more like preventive means of control; however, if necessary, the Chinese government will use military force to show that it will not be moved.

In Japan, the police are apolitical and consist of individual agencies. They are not controlled by the central government and are overseen by an independent judiciary and a free press. The public is in response typically cooperative. Riots are dealt with via rapid response units or riot police units, which are dispensed in the event of a large-scale riot or protest or natural disaster.

The aim is cooperation and in this sense Japan is more reflective of the desire to keep the peace like in the UK than the willingness to use coercive methods to restore order, as in the U.S., Saudi Arabia or China. The factors that contribute to the similarities and differences that exist between the U.S. and the other four countries are based on the cultural values of the nations. For example, the U.S.

was founded by violent revolutionaries who through off the control of the English Crown in 1776. The legacy of the U.S. then has been to be fiercely independent and also willing to fight to maintain control whether internally or externally. When the Southern states tried to secede from the Union, force was used by the central government to compel them to rejoin. Whenever riots occur or natural disasters, military aid is often used to restore order: part of the U.S.

culture is that might makes right—and this idea can be found in the culture of the KSA and China. In the cultures of the UK and Japan there is a tendency to promote peace through cooperation rather than to use violence to restore order. In a sense this is found in their cultures as well.

The UK was cast off by America in the American Revolution and lost its status as a world power soon thereafter, so it understands what it means to be on the other side of things. Japan was devastated in WWII and so it knows the feeling too. There is no such sense of loss experienced by the U.S., the KSA or China—so they are still willing to use coercive means to instill order when necessary as they all find violence to be effective still.

At the same time, Japan’s response is decentralized—the most decentralized of all the countries. The U.S. is.