Policing and politics are not a good mix
Police and politics are a dangerous mix. The body overseeing the armed force in society should not consist of members of that force. Yet, if one looks across Canada recently, one finds what seems to be a concerted move of police into politics, at all levels from municipal to federal.
A recent example came when the Ontario PC Party announced the nomination of 22-year Hamilton police officer, Sgt. Peter Wiesner, as its candidate in the upcoming Hamilton Centre provincial byelection. Last fall, the federal Conservatives ran a veteran police officer, Ron Chhinzer, as their candidate in the Mississauga-Lakeshore byelection.
More than police entering politics as candidates, police associations have recently taken unprecedented steps to influence election outcomes. Last fall, Vancouver’s police association took the extraordinary step of endorsing law and order mayoral candidate Ken Sim and his ABC Party. Association President Ralph Kaisers said at the time, “Electing Ken Sim and an ABC majority will ensure that police and other front line responders will have the resources they need.” They did not have to wait long for their endorsement to pay off. Less than a month after the election, council voted an extra $8 million to hire 100 new officers.
Last fall’s municipal elections also saw the Ottawa Police Association (OPA), condemn one mayoral candidate, Catherine McKenney, for previously voting, as a councillor, to shift some funding away from police toward other community services. They even released a background document describing McKenney’s “history and record” as “well-established and troubling.” No other candidate was treated this way. McKenney lost the election.
The stakes for policing are high, with police funding taking up the largest proportion of city. In Hamilton, police are asking for a substantial increase of 6.71 per cent. This would increase spending on police by an extra $12 million, resulting in an expenditure of $196 million. The current context matters too as these considerable numbers are brought under growing scrutiny and calls from community groups to defund police.
Criminologists have raised concerns police taking sides with civilian politicians over issues of who should exercise civilian oversight of police and how. Worries also exist regarding determinations about department size, equipment, and deployment.
For police, having current or former officers in government can play a part in ensuring police funding interests are prioritized, while also giving a bully pulpit to diminish the voices of critics.
In its worst moments, it can take the form of policy that appears like vengeance or punishment against critics. One rather startling example of how this can work in practice comes from the recently elected city council in Vancouver. In January, former Vancouver police officer turned city councillor Brian Montague of the ruling ABC Party successfully brought forward an amendment to the annual city grant report, denying $7,500 in grants to the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) to operate a popular, life-affirming, art table for vulnerable drug users. The art table funding was the only grant, out of 84, that was not approved by the council.
Notably, VANDU has been a highprofile and vocal critic of police violence and criminalization of drug users. This includes during the time officer Montague was a spokesperson for the Vancouver police.
Given this recent, apparently more active, mixing of police and politics it is legitimate to ask if this signals a new politicization of policing more broadly. It also raises questions about the separation of powers that civilians believe should exist between police and government. As one criminologist puts it: “The moment those two things get closer, we’re in trouble because the police can easily become stooges of politicians they’ve supported …”
Police remain the monopoly of force in society, so these are pressing questions.
It has long been held that those who are calling the shots, in government, should not be the same as those who are, quite literally, empowered to do the shooting.