What does history say, what does the police protect, and what does society want?

Mark Neocleous states, 'The history of the police as a security project is the history of the fear that private property itself feels toward its most radical other (communism).'  Considering that modern police organizations were formed in the 15th and 16th centuries, it is hard not to agree with Neocleous.

On the other hand, it is obvious that every social class holding power will create a 'power apparatus' to protect the existing order and will be guarded by a 'security' unit while establishing law-obedience relations. This is precisely where the reason for the police's existence begins to be debated. Whose police is the police? Whom does/should its existence serve; what is/should be the basis of the laws from which it derives its power?

The questions we have tried to express above were also asked during the periods when the police force first gained existence, and great debates took place during the organization's establishment phase. For example, this is how the establishment process of the modern police force in Britain developed in 1829. When the British Parliament wanted security needs to be met not by society, but by a salaried, bureaucratic structure tied to the government, the first objections were raised immediately. If this newly established 'security organization' were to be tied to the government, it would protect not all the people, but the interests of the class upon which the government relied—that is, the life and property security of merchants and capital owners. Moreover, once such an organization is formed, how will the 'police' be the police of the people, rather than the police of the ruling class and their political power?

It is clear how insufficiently we have been able to answer these questions asked 196 years ago. The police, whose harsh stance we witness especially in social events, are in a position of serving the aforementioned ruling class/power under the control of the political authority and the laws they operate under, even though they themselves do not belong to a 'wealthy' class.

World history is full of examples that confirm this situation we are talking about. Indeed, we have to face this bitter reality from time to time in our own country as well. We all witnessed this in the most recent mass protests. 

As we stated above, we cannot imagine an institutional structure independent of the dominant social system and classes. In this respect, all institutions in a country are actually a mirror of that country's government. Therefore, from courts to tax offices, from hospitals to schools and streets, that mirror always reminds us of itself.

On the other hand, despite the absolute reality of the system, there are also people who question the institutions and operations they are in, object to them when necessary, and even seek alternatives. Regardless of the results, all of these are important and meaningful.

I would like to begin with an example from Yeşilçam and then continue with a concrete case.

In the film Komiser Cemil, the character Cemil, played by Cüneyt Arkın, says the following about being a police officer: 

"What do you think a police officer is?

A herd used by politicians, statesmen, or members of the government for their own ambitions? A government force that chases those who want freedom in exchange for a salary? Or a government official standing against the laborer? He is the first unfortunate person the public blames in the face of any misfortune. In reality, he is the hope of the people, the people's sense of justice. In his personality, the people see the entire state. If the police in a country become ugly or evil, nothing in that country can be beautiful. If the people in a country do not trust the police, they will not even trust their president."

The film Komiser Cemil was shot in 1975. It was precisely in those years that an association seeking answers to Komiser Cemil's questions was founded: the Police Association (Pol-Der). While the association in question carried out work regarding the personal and professional rights of police officers, it also acted along a line that adopted "leftist and democratic" rhetoric ideologically. The association had 43 branches and a membership of around 17,000. This was a massive number for those days. 

So, what was Pol-Der aiming for, and on what foundation was it operating?

 Osman Kaymak, who served as the Istanbul branch president of Pol-Der from 1974 to 1979, answers this question as follows: "When we were founding Pol-Der, we set out with the idea that the police should not take bribes, the police should not beat people, and the police should be the police of the people, not the government."

"The 'People's Police' is also an important discourse. So, what is the purpose of this discourse? Let us hear the answer from a Pol-Der member: 'The people's police means this: being in contact with the public, solving their problems, helping them in a social sense—for example, not just dealing with police incidents, but even ensuring the safety of students going to and from school. Many of us would do things in between; during our off-duty hours, when a leftist student group—you know, it was a bloodbath back then—needed to get to their universities safely, we would take security measures at terminals while they were going home. This was not an assignment, of course, but voluntary. With our pistols at our waists and, if necessary, rifles in our hands, we would protect those children, protect the people, and protect democratic neighborhoods. That is the whole point of the association. I mean, let me put it this way: if it weren't for Pol-Der at that time, there would have been much more pressure on the public; Pol-Der significantly withstood this pressure.'"

The discourse of the "people's police" is striking, as the police themselves are members of that very public. Consequently, they are also affected by the economic, political, and social problems experienced by that public; they too are worn down and exhausted within the gears of the dominant system, receiving their own share of the system's negative impacts. For this reason, the police are not citizens separate from the public; being forced to act as such—treating the streets, protesters, and activists seeking their rights as if they were "enemies"—is a form of poisoning, a terrible alienation. 

A declaration published at the second General Assembly of Pol-Der emphasizes exactly this reality, and the following lines were penned at that time: "The police form an organic unity with the public. They are not separate from the society they serve, but a part of it. The police are not an obstacle to the exercise of constitutional and democratic rights, nor are they an organization that is at odds with students, intervenes unnecessarily in meetings and demonstrations, or treats citizens poorly. No circle will ever have the power to turn them into such a state."

These lines are undoubtedly invaluable; they are words that oppose the dehumanization and enslavement of people regardless of their profession, reminding us of rights and law, and emphasizing social unity and its importance.  Wise assessments that open small gaps in great walls and shed light on their time and the future... If the lands we live on today are to breathe and seeds are to sprout, we need to look back at experiences like Pol-Der. In those experiences, we will see students, labor movements, tens of thousands of people resisting exploitation and oppression, and the books and actions of those people, as well as films like 'Komiser Cemil'. What remains is for those seeds to bear fruit, which will be done by the bright, brilliant people and youth of this country. The paths they have walked from Istanbul to Ankara, from Bursa to Sivas, and to every corner of the country are witnesses to this.

Source: 

Aydın Tonga. The Relationship Between Power and the Police/Bilim ve Gelecek Magazine.

Feyza Sena Çakır. The Diffusion Effect of Protest Cycles: The Pol-Der Experience in 1970s Turkey. Master's Thesis, 2022.