Trust in Transition: Legitimacy of Criminal Justice in Transitional Societies

Chapter

Abstract

The criminal justice system is deemed a focal area in the transition to democracy, and in the process of democratization of institutions and civil society. Police and courts are seen as the vanguard of democratic change. It is a significant characteristic of such claims that the legitimacy of criminal justice institutions—the police and the courts—is seen as decisive in securing legitimacy for the transition to democracy, and for democratic government, and thus the contribution of these institutions to the political stability in the transitional environment is of major importance. Police and justice reform is turned into a “problem of trust” as Goldsmith noted in 2005. In which ways does the transition to democracy impact on the legitimacy of criminal justice institutions, and how do these processes affect other institutions in the transitional process? Are there typical trajectories of delegitimization and relegitimization? Which institutional and civil society changes do mostly affect the confidence and trust in and legitimacy of criminal justice?

This paper addresses these questions in four steps, building on a sample of 78 transitional countries which experienced transitions to democracy between 1974 and 2010. First, trajectories of trust in police and justice after the transition are identified for up to more than 15 post-transition years. Second, cohorts of transitional countries from Europe and the Americas are compared to mature democracies in their regions. Third, contextual factors conducive to the development of trust in police and justice like institutional reforms and empowerment of civil society are analyzed. Finally, the impact of conflict and internal violence as well as of transitional justice on trust in and legitimacy of criminal justice are explored.

The results show only incremental changes in trust in police and justice, which in addition are not consistently to the better, across a post-transition period up to 15 years. Transitional countries do not provide an environment in which such trust can flourish, and they do not catch up with mature democracies. Trust levels consistently remain below the levels of mature democracies, as do indicators of rule of law, empowerment of civil society and support of democracy. However, most of the reforms and indicators of rule of law, stable democratic institutions, and balance between civil society and state institutions do not contribute to generating trust in police as has been widely assumed. Finally, while in a post-conflict situation citizens are more willing to grant legitimacy to police and justice, transitional justice procedures send ambiguous messages and do not enhance trust in police and justice.

The results pose critical questions to widely held assumptions about the positive impact of rule of law and general capacity building on police and justice legitimacy in transitional and post-conflict societies. They point towards two routes of improving police legitimacy. First, efficiency in terms of combating crime, i.e., being competent in their everyday tasks, seems to be decisive for establishing a trustworthy police. Second, control of corruption, i.e., improving fairness and equality in decision making seems to be another core requirement. The results suggest a focus on police and justice reform and on the mundane delivery of security and justice in the everyday lives of citizens rather than implementing a plethora of programs of institutional capacity building across the board.

References

  1. Albrecht, P., & Buur, L. (2009). An uneasy marriage: Non-state actors and police reform. Policing and Society, 19(4), 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, B. (2009a). Introduction: Policing post-conflict societies: Helping out the state. Policing and Society, 19(4), 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, B. (2009b). Security in post-conflict Africa: The role of non-state policing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayley, D. (2001). Democratizing the police abroad: What to do and how to do it. Washington: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Bertelsmann Stiftung (2012). Transformation index: Codebook for country assessments. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  6. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.Google Scholar
  7. Bradford, B., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2014). Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadhurst, R., & Bouhours, T. (2009). Policing in Cambodia: Legitimacy in the making? Policing and Society, 19(2), 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burlyuk, O. (2014). An ambitious failure: Conceptualising the EU approach to rule of law (in Ukraine). Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 6(1), 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Call, C., & Cousens, E. (2007). Ending wars and building peace: Coping with crisis. New York, NY: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
  11. Capussela, A. (2011). Eulex in Kosovo: A shining symbol of incompetence. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/09/eulex-kosovo-eu-mission.
  12. Cheesman, N. (2014). Law and order as asymmetrical opposite to the rule of law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 6(1), 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cingranelli, D. L., Richards, D. L., & Chad Clay, K. (2012). The CIRI human rights dataset. Retrieved from http://www.humanrightsdata.org.
  14. Dinnen, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2009). Reinventing policing through the prism of colonial kiap. Policing and Society, 19(2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinnen, S., & McLeod, A. (2009). Policing Melanesia: International expectations and local realities. Policing and Society, 19(4), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyzenhaus, D. (1998/2003). Judging the judges, judging ourselves: Truth, reconciliation and the apartheid legal order. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  17. Elster, J. (Ed.). (2006). Retribution and reparation in the transition to democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Epstein, D., Bates, R., Goldstone, J. A., Kristensen, I., & O’Halloran, S. (2006). Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 551–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esty, D. C., Goldstone, J. A., Gurr, T. R., Harff, B., Levy, M., Dabelko, G. D., et al. (1998). State failure task force report: Phase II findings. Working papers, 31 July 1998. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  20. EULEX. (2010). EULEX programme report: Building sustainable change together. Brussels: European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.Google Scholar
  21. Frei, N., van Laak, D., & Stolleis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Geschichte vor Gericht: Historiker, Richter und die Suche nach Gerechtigkeit. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  22. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibney, M., Cornett, L., & Wood, R. (2012). Political terror scale 1976−2010. Retrieved from http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/.
  24. Goldsmith, A. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4), 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horne, C. (2012). Assessing the impact of lustration on trust in public institutions and national government in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 45(4), 412–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchison, M., & Johnson, K. (2011). Capacity to trust? Institutional capacity, conflict and political trust in Africa, 2000–2005. Journal of Peace Research, 48(6), 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 493–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, J., & Sunshine, J. (2006). Public confidence in policing: A neo-Durkheimian perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 47(2), 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kääriäinen, J. T. (2007). Trust in police in 16 European countries: A multilevel analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 4(4), 409–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karstedt, S. (2006). Democracy, values and violence: Paradoxes, tensions, and comparative advantages of liberal inclusion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 50–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karstedt, S. (2013a). Trusting authorities: Legitimacy, trust and collaboration in non-democratic regimes. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 127–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karstedt, S. (2013b). State crime: The European experience. In S. Body-Gendrot, M. Hough, K. Kerezsi, & R. Lévy (Eds.), Routledge companion to European criminology (pp. 125–152). Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Koonings, K., & Kruijt, D. (Eds.). (1999). Societies of fear: The legacy of civil war, violence and terror in Latin America. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  35. Kreutz, J. (2010). How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP conflict termination dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kyed, H. M. (2009). Community policing in post-war Mozambique. Policing and Society, 19(4), 354–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Landmann, T., & Carvalho, E. (2010). Measuring human rights. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehti, M. (2013). NRILP comparative homicide time series (NRILP-CHTS). Research Brief, (32), 1–12.Google Scholar
  39. Loader, I. (2006). Policing, recognition and belonging. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malone, M. F. (2010). The verdict is in: The impact of crime on public trust in Central America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(3), 99–128.Google Scholar
  41. Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T. R., & Jaggers, K. (2013). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions 1800–2012: Dataset users’ manual. Vienna: Center for Systemic Peace.Google Scholar
  42. Marshall, M., & Jaggers, K. (2010). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions 1800−2010: Polity level 2004−2008. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
  43. McAdams, A. J. (Ed.). (1997). Transitional justice and the rule of law in new democracies. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (1997). Trust, distrust and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 418–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (1998). Trust in untrustworthy institutions: Culture and institutional performance in post-communist societies. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  46. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oakley, R., Dziedzik, M., & Goldberg, E. (Eds.). (2002). Policing the new world disorder: Peace operations and public security. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
  48. Payne, L. A., Olsen, T. D., & Reiter, A. G. (2013). Transitional justice database project. Retrieved from http://www.tjdbproject.com/.
  49. Perels, J. (1999). Das juristische Erbe des Dritten Reiches. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, D. (2008). Post-conflict state building and state legitimacy: From negative to positive peace? Development and Change, 39(4), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roussey, L., & Deffains, B. (2012). Trust in judicial institutions: An empirical approach. Journal of Institutional Economics, 8(3), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Samuels, K. (2006). Rule of law reform in post-conflict countries: Operational initiatives and lessons learned. Washington: World Bank, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction.Google Scholar
  53. Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 500–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, D. (2007). The foundations of legitimacy. In T. Tyler (Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspectives (pp. 30–58). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Stahn, C. (2005). Accountability and legitimacy in practice: Lawmaking by transitional administrations. [Manuscript]. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  56. Stan, L., & Nedelsky, N. (2013). Encyclopedia of transitional justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stromseth, J. (2009). Justice on the ground: Can international criminal law courts strengthen domestic rule of law in post-conflict societies? Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 1(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sztompka, P. (1993). Civilizational incompetence: The trap of post-communist societies. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 22(1), 85–95.Google Scholar
  59. Sztompka, P. (1996). Trust and emerging democracy: Lessons from Poland. International Sociology, 11(1), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teitel, R. (2002). Transitional justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. United States Institute of Peace. (2013). Truth commission digital collection. Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/publications/truth-commission-digital-collection.
  62. Wilson, J. M. (2006). Law and order in an emerging democracy: Lessons for the reconstruction of Kosovo’s police and justice system. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 152–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of LawUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations