Paramilitarism: overview and key concepts

Paramilitarism Within Police Organizations and Negative Police Attitudes Towards the Public the Police Must Serve

Police organizations are not military organizations. However, the police face many of the same demands and risks as soldiers in the field of combat, over the course of their daily working lives. To cope with these risks, such as violent offenders and a hostile environment, police organizations have evolved into tightly organized hierarchies of authoritarian leadership. Police bureaucracies pride themselves upon loyalty to organizational rules and authority, much like a military organization obeys a strict chain of command when it is engaged in decision-making. Although this top-down approach to leadership can seem efficient and effective on the surface, it can also be problematic in terms of fulfilling another primary function of the police force, that of providing community safety in a way that establishes a pattern of trust between the community and the enforcers of the law. An overly bureaucratic structure can also inhibit community within the police hierarchy, as well as between the police and ordinary citizens.

Police organizations are classified as "tall" hierarchies, with many ranks between the lowest members and the highest members of the hierarchy. The quasi-military nature of every police department is reflected in the common method of organizing a department in a fashion governed by a centralized command structure, rigid differences among ranks, military terminology in terms of meeting places and rules, frequent use of commands and orders, a focus on making sure that rules and discipline are strictly enforced, and often discouraging communication, creativity and change. (O'Connor, 2004)

The physical structure of a police organization might be said to take a kind of pyramid-like form, where top of the pyramid is formed by a relatively small number of administrators, which include chiefs and majors followed by captains, lieutenants, and sergeants, and finally officers. Chiefs tend to be either local or primarily concerned with issues and conditions of a specific hometown, or oriented towards national issues and conditions of the police profession as a whole, rather than concerns of ordinary officers. Majors are concerned mostly with civilian-type duties, such as budgeting, and liaisons with outside authorities. Captains are usually bureau or shift commanders and oversee department budgets. Lieutenants are often used to mediate between officers who have problems, while sergeants act as general supervisors. Corporals are often in charge of training the force. Officers form the backbone of the organization, and function as the ordinary soldiers of the police force. (O'Connor, 2004) The higher the rank, the more authority one possesses.

One of the problems of creating a paramilitary culture within the police force is that such a culture depends on a highly bureaucratic structure of relationships. Authority of position and seniority, rather than the quality or truth of an individual's ideas often holds sway, which stymies communication, as ordinary personnel feel that they have no right to offer their input to their supervisors. The levels of hierarchy can also create blockages of communication, and prevent, for example, the valuable observations of an officer working as a beat cop from being passed up the chain of command to the chief. Conversely, the chief's edict that there be more respect for women and minorities in the force may not be fully passed down the chain of command, because of the levels of hierarchy and the need to pass the word through so many different channels, and possible hostility of the lower-ranking members to the more privileged personnel at the top of the ranks. Finally, the use of military authority and dress, and the adherence to a set of rules that is not observed by the public the police serves can contribute to an 'us vs. them' mentality that is not conducive to creating positive relations between the police and community the police are supposed to serve. (O'Connor, 2004) final contributor to a hostile police and community relations is the development, as a result of this paramilitary emphasis on 'us' (the police) versus 'them' (the civilians who presumably do not understand the dangers and stresses of policing), of what Jerome Skolnick called "the policeman's working personality." A sense of constant professional danger reinforced by one's fellow officers and through the paramilitary, formalized training all policeman face. The policeman becomes a continually suspicious person, constantly aware that persons he or she deals with outside of the ranks of his or her fellow officers may break the law. ("Historical Context within Jerome Skolnick," 2006, Crime Theory) The sense of brotherhood fostered within the organization has also given rise to a "blue wall of silence," whereby policemen are unwilling to inform upon fellow officers, even if those officers are engaged in official misconduct. Transgressions are seen as a result of the stresses of combat (policing) and as necessary, exceptional behavior even if it is in violation of civilian rights to administer justice in a lawless, almost warlike society.