Police and demonstrators tussle at the G20 protest in London

The recent death of Ian Tomlinson, after being viciously pushed by a policeman moments before having a heart attack, has put the issues of police conduct and accountability on the front pages of newspapers across the UK. The police are now under increasing pressure to justify the use of tactics such as kettling, which involves imprisoning people in barricaded areas against their will – sometimes for up to five or six hours without sanitation.

Many protestors have claimed that the shocking footage of this unprovoked attack is representative of a wider shift in police tactics that seem designed to encourage direct conflict with protestors. This is a worrying trend at a time when the recession will give people ample cause for demonstrating. As people’s frustrations spill out into the streets in the form of demonstrations, the manner in which these encounters are policed will once again become one of the defining debates of our time — as it was during the miners strike in the 1980’s.

In general the police in the UK have good relations with the public and a majority of them would agree that it is totally unacceptable to push a man in the back for no apparent reason — yet at demonstrations heavy handed tactics are the norm rather than the exception. How can this be so? Although individual culpability is vitally important, and should be pursued vigorously, the real issue is not individual officers, but how the police deal with protests and demonstrations at an institutional level.

If the death of Ian Tomlinson is the visible edge of more systematic violence toward protesters this suggests an institutional culture that accepts the widespread use of violence and intimidation against members of the public. This negative perception of protesters (often given voice in the right-wing press) serves only to demonize and is one of factors which leads to unacceptable and violent behaviour by them. The unhelpful statements of police spokesman in the run up the G20 protest show that there are serious questions that need to be asked about remarks that appear designed to inflame an already volatile situation. Statements claiming the police were ‘up for it’ and warning of the ‘old faces on the protest circuit’ served only to prime each side for the violent conflict that followed. One must wonder whether the push on Ian Tomlinson (and many other similar reported incidences) would have occurred if police spokesman and those in charge of operations were urging restraint wherever possible.

***

But it is not just the police who are happy do demonize! Despite evidence that environmental and situational influences are powerful predictors of human behaviour, the demonstrators I spoke with were prone to attribute excessive violence to the particular ‘kind of person’ that joins the police, the kind of person who is somehow motivated by a kind of malevolent desire for power. That there is no evidence of these ‘universal’ traits is generally overlooked, but it these beliefs that often lead to condemnation of whole groups on the basis of shared characteristics inferred from the action of a few individuals. It is psychologically convenient and suits the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy, but it also serves the purpose of discounting environmental influences which should be the focus of any reform agenda.

In a famous experiment carried out at Harvard University in 1971, Professor Philip Zimbardo put 24 students into a simulated prison environment with one half acting as the guards and the other the inmates. The experiment quickly got out of hand and was terminated after just six days. Many of the inmates became emotionally distressed, whilst one third of the guards were judged to have exhibited ‘genuine’ sadistic tendencies. At the very least this tells us that people’s behaviour is partly an extension of the situation, and not simply a persons ‘nature’. It also highlights the speed and ease with which divisions amongst groups can become entrenched and inflexible if not managed properly.

As the institutional presence at these demonstrations it is the responsibility of police planners to adopt tactics that reduce not exacerbate conflict. Failure to do so is both a failure in their responsibility to the public and their own rank and file. In fact the effects of perceived threats or violence directed toward police are often underestimated or outright dismissed, yet according to one psychologist: ‘The chronic stress of police work along with the inability to respond to the actual sources of that stress increase both the perception of threats and the aggressiveness of responses to perceived threats.’

This is not an argument for diminished responsibility (far from it), but rather an acknowledgement that there are behavioural tendencies that must be managed carefully and a recognition that those in charge of police policy have a responsibility both to the public and their own officers to create a culture, and implement tactics, that respect the rights of protesters and condemn violent excesses. At the very least, tactics should reflect the system of law they claim to represent which includes people’s right to demonstrate.

If heavy-handed tactics continue to influence the organization and policing of demonstrations (and more people are injured or killed) the police will succeed only in redirecting the focus of the anger and frustration toward themselves and away from the issues. This in turn will make the jobs of the officers on the frontline even more stressful and dangerous which will likely lead to continued and escalating violence. The way these situations are handled tactically is the key contributor to the level of violence that ensues, and imprisoning protesters in barricaded areas against their will, puts the safety of both police and protesters at risk.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.