Continental Europe stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the North Sea to Turkey. It is comprised of many different countries, twenty-five of them being part of the European Union (EU). We cannot account for the diversity of policing in Continental Europe within a relatively short article. We chose to exclude Russia and the former countries of the Eastern bloc, because policing there is still in transition. We shall focus on the largest countries—France, Germany, Italy, and Spain—to which we have added three others—Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden—for comparison purposes.
Although security and intelligence services are involved in political policing, we will not deal with them in any detail, because such work is of a specialized nature. The article is divided into five parts: the structure of policing in the seven countries that we mentioned, history, common aspects of police organizations in these countries, selected features of the police personnel and of the environment in which they operate, and, finally, police cooperation in Continental Europe. We will briefly conclude with a comparison between public and private policing. We also contrast Continental European policing with Anglo-American policing.
The Structure of Policing
To provide some factual ground to our analyses, we briefly describe the organizational structure of policing in the seven selected countries:
• Sweden. Like the Irish Republic, Sweden has only one national police force (Rikspolis), which answers to the Ministry of Justice. Within this police force, twenty-one police authorities are responsible for policing the counties of the country. The counties are further subdivided into police districts, of which there are several hundreds. The National Security Service is integrated into the national police. There is also a national crime investigation department and a special unit for crowd control.
• France. France has two national police agencies. The Police nationale is under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior (Home Secretary) and the Gendarmerie nationale answers to the Ministry of Defense. The Police nationale operates in cities, whereas the Gendarmerie polices rural areas and small towns. There is a third force—the Compagnies republicaines de securite—that is part of the national police, but is organized like a military unit, with its members living in barracks. This unit specializes in crowd control and riot policing. There is a national criminal investigation department—police judi-caire—and an intelligence service that is part of the national police (there are several other security and intelligence services). In some cities, mayors have set up municipal policing agencies (polices municipales).
• Italy. The Italian structure of policing is similar to that of the French. Italy has three national police agencies, the State Police (Polizia di Stato), the Corps of Carabineers (Corpo Carabi-nieri), and the Treasury Guard (Guardia di Finanze). All three are under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior and they are organized like military forces. Among other functions, the Carabinieri are responsible for criminal investigation, the repression of organized crime, and counterterrorism. All cities and larger towns have municipal forces (Vigili Urbani) that enforce municipal regulations and police traffic.
• Spain. Spain’s police forces are organized very much like those of the two previous countries. It has two national police agencies, the National Police (Policia Nacional), which is responsible for most police duties, and the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil), which is a militarized force that patrols rural areas and is also specialized in the protection of national security (coun-terterrorism) and crowd control. There are also municipal police forces (Policia Municipal) that enforce local bylaws and traffic regulations.
• Germany. Although they are also highly centralized, the German police forces are structured differently. There are two federal police forces: the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), which might be termed a German FBI, and the Federal Border Guard (Bundesgrenz-schutz). Both are under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. However, the basic policing structure rests on the sixteen state or province police agencies (Landespolizei), which are similarly structured.
• The Netherlands. The Dutch structure is similar to the German. There is a National Police Agency (Rijkpo-litie) that is under the authority of the central government (Ministry of the Interior) and twenty-five regional police forces that provide the backbone of the policing system. There is also a military police force, the Royal Dutch Constabulary (Koninklijke Marechaussee), that operates in rural areas and polices the Dutch borders.
• Belgium. The Belgian police underwent a complete reform in 2001 that moved it closer to an Anglo-American decentralized model. It is comprised of a federal police force that brought together the former Gendarmerie and the national criminal investigation unit and of 196 local police forces answering to a mayor.
This sample of continental police forces was selected because it displays the various types of police structure found in Europe: (1) complete centralization in one police force (Sweden); (2) high centralization, with no more than four police forces (France, Italy, and Spain); (3) regional centralization (Germany and the Netherlands); and (4) an experiment into decentralized local policing, with a strong national agency (Belgium). Most police systems in Europe fall under these categories. Except in Belgium, the municipal police forces enforce various local bylaws, regulate traffic, and are unarmed. They are closer to a private security agency accountable to the local mayor than to a private police force.
History
The first policing system was founded in 1667, in France, with the creation of the office of the general lieutenant of police. The French system migrated throughout Continental Europe, particularly in Austria and the German states. The crucial feature of this system was that policing originally meant governance, the police mandate encompassing nearly all public services (for example, garbage collection) and all matters of interest to the state. This was particularly true of the German states, where Policeywissenschaft—the first German concept of policing—coincided with what would be called today the welfare state. The redefinition of policing as criminal law enforcement occurred only in the late 1800s, under the influence of the British reform of policing.
Common Structural Aspects
The most prominent feature of the police systems just described is their high level of centralization, Belgium being in part an exception. Centralization means that there is a single source of command that flows from the top and that there is a drastically limited number of police organizations. It entails several other characteristics of Continental European policing:
• Policing for the state. According to Max Weber, the state is defined by its monopoly over the use of force. This reflects the reality of Continental Europe, where the state is ”the monopoly” and the military and police are the force. The police forces of Continental Europe were originally created by the state on its behalf, and consequently all of them harbor a security intelligence service, which performs work similar to that of independent national security agencies. There is now a growing debate in Europe on what the police should be doing: either preserving the state’s sovereignty against threats (for example, political dissidence) or providing security to the community, the latter alternative being increasingly favored.
• Militarization. Military forces are prototypes of centralized organizations. Expectedly, centralized police forces also have a military structure. In Continental Europe, many police agencies are effectively under the authority of the Ministry of Defense. The police are even more militaristic in Eastern bloc countries.
• Specialization. The larger the organization is, the more it can afford to have specialized units. This is the case in Continental Europe, where police forces have a wealth of specialized units (for example, gambling police). The crucial specialization is crowd control, because of Continental Europe’s strong historical tradition of mass demonstrations that could threaten the state.
• Friction. In Continental Europe, large agencies take the form of a pyramid, where hierarchy plays an overwhelming role. This hierarchy not only ranks individual members of organizations, but it also scales the prestige of the constituent parts of these agencies. For instance, criminal investigation units staffed with plainclothes inspectors have a higher status than other units staffed with personnel in uniform. These marked differences in status generate friction between the different components of the police apparatus. Hence, high centralization may maximize conflict rather than unity of purpose.
• Accountability. In the mind of their Anglo-American critics, the police of Continental Europe have a bad reputation with respect to accountability. This reputation is largely undeserved but reflects the symbiosis between the state and its police. Scandinavian countries, which have invented the concept of an ombudsman—a government authority receiving citizens’ complaints—are not lacking in accountability. France cuts an exemplary figure in this respect. The police are subject to several accountability mechanisms: their own hierarchy, two kinds of inspectors (police and administration), the courts, three national commissions (on data banks, electronic surveillance, and police ethics), and parliament. The French National Commission on the Ethics of Security (Commission nationale de deontologie de la securite) provides an insight into the system. It receives complaints against all main government agencies involved in security (the police, customs, the national railroad police, and the prison system). However, a citizen cannot complain directly to the commission but must instead typically go through an elected official, such as a member of parliament or senator. Despite this limitation, complaints have risen from 19 in 2001 when the commission was established to 107 in 2004, an increase of five times. The situation in France reflects the mixed nature of police accountability in other Continental European countries.
• Prosecution. Another feature of police accountability is found in countries such as France, Italy, and Spain. The criminal investigation of serious offenses—notably murder, organized crime, or terrorism—is supervised by a judge. Some of these magistrates have achieved celebrity in their fight against organized crime, particularly in Italy (judges Falcone and Borselllino).
Police Personnel
Several features of police personnel in Continental Europe are in contrast with Anglo-American policing. Having police forces that represent the ethnic makeup of the society is a concern that began to emerge around the end of the twentieth century, if at all. Here are some more structural features:
• Lateral entry. Police forces having a quasi-military structure recruit their staff in two ways, as do military organizations. The rank-and-file officers are recruited into the organizations at the bottom entry level through recruitment centers. Individuals who satisfy certain criteria, such as having a university degree (generally in law), are recruited as commissioned officers and undergo special training. Thus, many forces have a dual system of promotion. The rank-and-file can move up the organization by succeeding at examinations. Commissioned officers have their own promotion files. The chief of police is generally a political appointee, often without any previous experience in policing.
• Unionization. Police unions in Continental Europe do not follow the ”one shop for all” model that is current in North America. There are different unions for the rank-and-file and for officers. Furthermore, there are various police unions at a given level, which recruit members on the basis of their politics. This fragmentation pits unions against each other and undermines their force.
• Local posting. In large policing organizations, the members are not posted in a particular place on the basis of where they originate from, but according to the needs of the organization. Hence, a police officer recruited in the south of the country may be assigned to the north, with the consequence that the local knowledge of recently posted recruits is limited.
• Ratio of police. The number of police per 100,000 population is significantly higher in the south of Continental Europe than in Anglo-American countries. For New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United
States, this number is respectively 195, 318, and 321. This compares with 379 police per 100,000 population in Greece, 394 in France, 440 in Portugal, 477 in Spain, and 488 in Italy.
The Environment
Europe is admittedly very different from the countries of North and South America. We single out two features that have special relevance for policing:
• The urban environment. Historians of policing have emphasized that policing was essentially an urban affair, the policing of cities being a defining feature of the police mandate. The cities of Continental Europe and the United Kingdom are generally old, and their beginnings can be traced back to the middle ages and even before for ancient Greek and Roman cities. The streets of these cities are generally narrow, some even feature stairs, and their layout is irregular. Consequently, the urban topography in Europe requires a deployment of police forces that is markedly different from the cruiser-based police patrol common to many North American cities. Random car patrols and high-speed car chases are not tactics adapted to the European urban setting.
• The legal environment. The legal environment of Continental Europe is complex. However, one simple and general feature of this environment is of paramount importance for policing: In nearly all the countries of Continental Europe, citizens are compelled to carry an identity card. The control of identity affords the police with a pervasive way to initiate contacts with citizens—particularly youths—whenever they suspect that something ought to be checked.
Police Cooperation and Transnational Policing
Police cooperation is rapidly developing among the members of the EU. Cooperation is different from the U.S. model, according to which federal agencies open offices in various countries (for example, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has had some sixty offices in more than forty countries). In the EU, cooperation is based on various transnational pieces of legislation enacted by the European Parliament, such as agreements and conventions against terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, and organized crime. Interpol excepted, cooperation was formally launched in 1976 by the TREVI (Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism, and International Violence) minister group. Now the main instruments of transnational police cooperation in the EU are the Schengen agreements signed in 1985 and 1990 and Europol.
The Schengen agreements were followed by the creation of the Schengen Information System (SIS), which allows the member states to obtain information regarding certain categories of persons and properties. A more powerful SIS II was expected to be developed by 2006. Europol functions as a support for the law enforcement agencies of all countries in the EU by gathering and analyzing information and intelligence specifically about people who are members or possible members of criminal organizations that operate internationally. Europol was first established as the European Drug Unit in 1992, which evolved into the European Police Office (Europol) with a much broader mandate. Europol’s headquarters is in The Hague and it employs some 130 members and forty-five liaison officers. Europol is still far removed from police field operations and its priority is building trust among the hundreds of law enforcement organizations with which it liaisons.
Private Security Forces
This article has essentially focused on the public police forces and nothing has yet been said about the private sector. The EU countries differ greatly from Anglo-Saxon countries with respect to the size of their private security sector. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have at least as much private police as public, and the United States has more than twice as much (some figures for the United States are much higher). In the EU, only the United Kingdom and Denmark have a private security sector that is approximately the same size as their public police forces. In other countries of the EU— Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Austria, and Belgium—the ratio between the numbers of privately and publicly employed police is rather small and ranges from 0.16 and 0.32. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that the private sector will increase in the years to come.
Conclusion
It is difficult to foresee what the future of policing has in store. Still, it is safe to predict that the police systems of Continental Europe and of Anglo-American countries will increasingly share common features rather than widening their differences.
