In classical logic, the police are implementing democratically legitimized policies, party neutral and correctable by law and politically controlled authority. In the new logic, the police are considered to be moral actor, partying to the established order and thus embodiment of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
That inevitably means politicising police work. This did not apply to the classical politicisation between the left and the right, in which the police could take a neutral position, but it does apply to the much more symbolic and moral politicisation based on affection and feeling. A stand-up becomes evidence that order must be restored or evidence of systemic injustice. The cop loses the ability to be only professional. This increases the embarrassment of action, resulting in defensive action or overcompensating hardness.

Because the police operate in both logics, the police have to deal with opposing expectations. In classical logic, the assignment is: Maintain consistent, treat people equally and be predictable. From the new logic, the police must be focused on recognising the misconception that people experience and, therefore, are reluctant to exercise authority - or not. These expectations clash and there is not the same time to meet. Every choice confirms legitimacy for one, for the other just continued injustice. The reactions to the incident at the bulb roof in Utrecht illustrate this tension field.

Risk to the police

The great danger is instrumentalisation of the police. Political actors deliberately or unconsciously use the police as evidence, as a symbol or as an escalation mechanism. The police risk losing its own meaning, which lies in the maintenance of the rule of law and the strengthening of social peace, and becoming part of a struggle for recognition from which it cannot derive any meaning.

That shouldn't happen. The police, whether they like it or not, will increasingly have to act as a buffer institution within the increasing tension in society. It absorbs tension and prevents escalation to an existential struggle. That means de-escalation above being right, facial over discipline and explanation over display of power where possible. However, that is extremely difficult.
The crucial thing is that the police should not internalize the role of enemy, but not that of moral arbitrator. 'Cause once the police plead guilty as an institution, she's gonna be out of room for action. But when she positions herself as the last bastion of the order, she loses her integral function.

An integrity police.

In this context, police integrity means the ability to exercise authority without becoming a party to the moral struggle over the legitimacy of the system, to which it belongs. Here is the great difficulty of the task the police stand for. This calls for institutional backup for the police with simultaneous political restraint. And it requires public leadership that tensions don't pass on to the police. If that does not happen, the police will be seen more quickly either as an enemy or as a repressive instrument or as a morally weak actor. In all three cases, violence increases, confidence decreases and institutional legitimacy becomes precarious.

The police are not only under pressure today, it is worse: it is in the fault of the political. She can try to help the system to carry this double logic, or break it.

Therefore, we need to redefine integrity, not as moral purity, but from the perspective of relational and balanced social stability in a context of experienced moral inequality and enmity.

The integrity of the police officer is aware of his/her symbolic position: Besides me trading, I mean something. That requires training in symbolic consciousness, and leadership that identifies and carries it.

This article was published in the Police Magazine and can also be read on www.websiteforthepolice.nl