The Cost of Rebellion: Rise in Crime?

The revolts occurring in the Middle-East have obviously positive aspects. The main advantage of those rebellion movements is probably the rise in democratic participation that people will have acquired through those revolts, i.e. the overthrowing of dictators will most likely serve the cause of democracy. Yes, you note that I emphasize the “maybe”, since some overthrows that have occurred throughout history have proven to materialize as cosmetic displays of change, merely changing aging puppets A, B, C for younger puppets D, E, F. We will assume this will not be the case here (or not, well this is not the current thematic we will focus on here). Please note that this article is not meant to be blindly pro or anti rebellion but merely to elaborate on some of those recent revolts' impacts on the societies that bred them.

One interesting element that came to light recently in regard to the revolt that took place in Egypt is the rise in crime that followed Hosni Mubarak's overthrow:

“Crimes committed in Egypt have increased several-fold in February and March compared to the same period last year, residents and a top security official said.

Armed robberies in the capital have also risen in Cairo’s poorer neighborhoods, remote areas and on highways, residents said.” (Source: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/04/09/144871.html)

I will try to pinpoint what is the direct link between an authoritarian regime and police forces being weakened by such a regime getting overthrown, and will apply my theory with situations elsewhere in the Middle-East, namely in Afghanistan, Iraq or else.

Authoritarian regimes use police forces to suppress any form of rebellion, including “crime-thought”, meaning public expression of opinions that are contrary to the regime's imposed line of thinking. The political line of thought imposed by the dictatorship will consist of propaganda-type formatted opinions (opinions suggesting directly or indirectly a positive view of the regime) which will be propagated through government offices and society's institutions, but will also be expected from every member of said society, i.e. what one says on the street, through public or private conversations, on their Facebook page or their blog, etc.

So, the “problem” with this scheme is that the regime will use the police force to “criminalize” the thinkers whose thoughts diverge from their official line of mind conduct. They will use the police to spy on opponents, arrest them and put them on trial, torture them, etc. Fast-forward in time to where such a regime has been overthrown. People will link police forces to the overthrown regime, since the police were collaborators to the dictator staying in power. There will be a backlash against the profession as a whole, which will be seen as lacking in ethical values; people with strong ethical values will be ashamed of being linked to political oppression and will thus leave the force. The police force will be destabilized and will lack human resources, as well as the credibility required to combat crime. The instability caused by the regime overthrow will stimulate crime, since crime feeds on disorder and social instability. The military may have then a tendency to get involved in the post-overthrow process to restore order, which will then further discredit the police forces' strength or will to restore and maintain social peace.

Thus we move to a similar situation regarding the controversial role of police forces in unstable states. Another situation, much different in many aspects but still similar in many ways to a regime overthrow situation is in the behavior and perception of police forces in the context of an occupation. When such a police force is supported and financed by the occupational government or regime, it then will be viewed by local resistance as collaborating with occupation, whether that view is completely accurate or not. The state being governed by foreign powers or governed by a regime supported/financed by outside/foreign forces, it will rely on police forces (along with military special forces, contractors, etc.) to carry some of their dirty jobs. Such a role will then discredit the police and cause them to be viewed in a negative light. Even when the occupation ends (if it does end), then the police will struggle to regain the public confidence it lost throughout the years it collaborated with the occupational regime, etc.

So my conclusion is: a regime overthrow may temporarily destabilize society and the ones that must protect society from the effects of said destabilization (such as an increase in crime) are the police, but since they will be perceived as the former regime's tool then they won't have the credibility required in order to maintain peace. The core problem here is not the regime overthrow itself, though, but rather the use of police forces by authoritarian regimes to reinforce their control over power. A better situation is when a dictatorship utilizes special, non-police forces to control public opinion and to tighten their grip on power; once the regime is gone those special/paramilitary forces may then be dissolved and the transition to democracy will be easier, since police forces will be viewed not as collaborators but as peace-keeping, law-enforcing forces.