Police Abuse in Contemporary Democracies 1St Edition Michelle D Bonner Et Al Eds All Chapter
Police Abuse in Contemporary Democracies 1St Edition Michelle D Bonner Et Al Eds All Chapter
Police Abuse in Contemporary Democracies 1St Edition Michelle D Bonner Et Al Eds All Chapter
Police Abuse
in Contemporary
Democracies
Editors
Michelle D. Bonner Mary Rose Kubal
University of Victoria St. Bonaventure University
Victoria, BC, Canada St. Bonaventure, NY, USA
This book is the result of many conversations, with many people, over
many years. We would like to thank all those who contributed to these
discussions, including the authors of the chapters in this volume and
those who have attended or participated in our panels and workshops
at the conferences of the International Political Science Association,
Canadian Political Science Association, American Political Science
Association, Western Political Science Association, and the Latin
American Studies Association.
Some people have gone out of their way to help us with various
aspects of the compilation and editing of the book. Thank-you especially
to Reeta Tremblay, Amy Verdun, as well as Michelle Bonner’s research
assistant, Marta Kleiman, who took on many of the detailed tasks
involved in copyediting. Thank-you also to the anonymous reviewers for
their supportive and thoughtful comments and to the editors at Palgrave
Macmillan, Anca Pusca and her editorial assistant Katelyn Zingg.
Funding and support for this project came from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council, the Centre for Global Studies
(University of Victoria), St. Bonaventure University (School of Arts &
Sciences), The Faculty Resource Network (New York University), and
the Briger Fund (Department of Political Science, Union College).
v
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Michelle D. Bonner, Michael Kempa, Mary Rose Kubal
and Guillermina Seri
Part I Citizenship
Part II Accountability
Part IV Conclusion
Appendix A 257
Appendix B 265
Appendix C 267
Index 269
Editors and Contributors
ix
x Editors and Contributors
Contributors
xiii
List of Tables
xv
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Police Abuse in Contemporary Democracies
M. D. Bonner (*)
University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
M. Kempa
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
M. R. Kubal
St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure, NY, USA
G. Seri
Union College, Schenectady, NY, USA
That is, what constitutes police abuse and its relationship with democ-
racy was contested.
Such powerful disagreements are not unique to democracy in the
United States. Abuse of police authority happens in all democracies. It
can include arbitrary arrest, selective surveillance and crowd control,
harassment, sexual assault, torture, killings, or even disappearances.
In newer democracies, police abuse is likely to be considered by polit-
ical scientists as a legacy of previous authoritarian regimes or civil war.
Its persistence is understood to reflect weak democratic institutions (the
primary focus of political scientists) and poorly functioning police insti-
tutions (a more common focus for criminologists).
Certainly, the field of political science counts with seminal contribu-
tions and a tradition of research scrutinizing the impact of police power
on the government such as: the various governing roles of the police
exposed by Michael Lipsky’s study of “street-level bureaucrats” (Lipsky
1980), William Ker Muir, Jr.’s study of the police as “street-corner pol-
iticians” (Muir 1977), or Otwin Marenin’s (1985) work on the police’s
“political economy of ruling” and its impact on democracy, not to men-
tion Michel Foucault’s (1977) thorough genealogy of police, or Mark
Neocleous’ (2000) research showing the role of police in fabricating
modern social order. Yet, students of democratization and theorists alike
have largely ignored this scholarship. Most political scientist research
stubbornly keeps treating policing as law enforcement.
Along these lines, in established democracies, police abuse is often
treated in political science and popular accounts as an aberration, an
act that has little to no bearing on democracy and that is adequately
addressed by existing or tweaked mechanisms of institutional account-
ability. This is in part the reason why police abuse has received more
attention in newer than in established democracies and from criminol-
ogists rather than political scientists, gaps that concerning trends call to
address.
As the introduction to a recent Perspectives on Politics volume on the
politics of policing and incarceration admonished, “it is now clear that
a truly general, comparative, and nonparochial political science must
account for the fact that the topics of policing, police brutality, incar-
ceration, and repression more generally are not limited to authoritarian
regimes” (Isaac 2015, p. 610). Here we take this agenda a step further
asking, is police abuse best understood as deviance that requires a tech-
nical institutional fix? or should its pervasiveness fundamentally alter our
1 INTRODUCTION 3
deemed necessary to impose order upon the working classes that Britain
needed to maintain the pace of its own engines of production. In paral-
lel, Daleiden (2006) emphasizes that policing in the south of the United
States has its roots in limiting the flight of slaves to protect the antebel-
lum economy.
Controlling the “dangerous classes” has been the flipside of polic-
ing in democracy judged necessary by notable political economists and
policing reformers such as Patrick Colquhoun, Adam Smith, Jeremy
Bentham, and John Stuart Mill in the eighteenth and nineteenth centu-
ries, through to such “professional” policing reformers of the twentieth
century as August Vollmer and O.W Wilson. As such, police abuse of
authority and selective application of police power has been tolerated by
classic, (neo)liberal, and critical political economists as an art of govern-
ment to be perfected, in the first case, as the enforcement of the law sup-
porting the market-driven order, in the second, and, as a problem to be
eradicated by redefining a more just political economy, in the latter. Thus
choices related to political economy play an important role in how polic-
ing and police abuse shape democratic citizenship and when mechanisms
of accountability will be activated. In collaboration with various other
forms of policing, including private guards, the modern state police have
had a daily impact on citizens’ lives (Clarke, Chapter 8; Müller, Chapter
9). To date, however, police powers remain discretional and vaguely
defined. They hold a unique and complicated, yet underexplored, rela-
tionship with democracy.
At the same time that this rich and nuanced history of police and
politics has been largely neglected in the political science literature on
democracy, concerns that democratization has stalled and may be revers-
ing have gained ground (Diamond 1997, 2015; Cooley 2015; Fukuyama
2015; Puddington 2015). Over the last decade, there has been a net
loss both in the number of such regimes and in the quality of democ-
racy. Scholars in comparative politics emphasize the weaknesses of liberal
democracy in practice (e.g., Plattner 2015). Adjectives such as “deleg-
ative,” “low-intensity,” “illiberal,” “semi-,” “incomplete,” etc., draw
attention to liberal democratic deficits (e.g., O’Donnell 1994; McSherry
1997). In other cases, electoral democracies are simply removed from
the category of democratic and relabeled as “competitive authoritarian”
(Levitsky and Way 2002; Puddington 2015). If concerning signs were
acknowledged earlier, the accumulation of negative trends in recent years
has triggered alarm.
10 M. D. Bonner et al.
specifically about the police, policing lies at the center of these processes
as a main medium through which the state imposes order and governs
the population’s access to rights.
At the same time, evidence on the decay of democracy has led polit-
ical scientists to interrogate the links between democracy, freedom, and
human rights. Along these lines, drawing on ratings on governance,
human rights, and political and civil liberties from the Freedom House,
Polity IV, the Political Terror Scale and the Cingranelli-Richards Index,
Clark (2014) revisits the relation between democracy and human rights
over the period 1981–2010. Comparing the worldwide yearly aver-
age ratings for each of the four indexes, the study shows that over the
three decades “democracy ratings have risen” but human rights scores
have gone down (Clark 2014, p. 403). Since the 1980s, democracy rap-
idly expanded and democratic performance improved across regions,
as reflected in a 20–25% rise in average Freedom House ratings and
in 45–60% rise in Polity IV scores worldwide (Clark 2014, p. 400).
Significant gaps between established and newer democracies notwith-
standing, democracy ratings show analogous patterns and trends. Yet,
regardless of how formally “democratic” countries may be, human rights
practices tend to diverge in distinct ways across countries and regions,
Clark notes, and governments’ respect for human rights shows signs
of decay even in established democracies (Clark 2014, pp. 404, 407).
Overall deterioration is shown by data on state abuses of physical integ-
rity, as measured by the Political Terror Scale, and on 15 fundamental
human rights including physical integrity, freedom of speech and move-
ment, or electoral self-determination assessed by the Cingranelli-Richards
index, with net losses of 7.5% in the former and 10.8% in the latter
between 1981 and 2010 (Clark 2014, p. 401).
Democracy has spread globally at the same time that human rights
protection has declined and become less uniform, a trend that puts
into question the widespread assumption that democratization would
bring improvements in terms of human rights. While positively related,
“democracy ratings and human rights ratings are clearly distinct,” Clark
concludes (2014, p. 399). Other researchers claim that human rights and
the quality of democracy have not been eroded in older democracies,
only in new ones (Møller and Skaaning 2013, p. 98). Yet, while older
democracies are more respectful of civil liberties generally, there is sig-
nificant reason for concern as regards specific freedoms, such as “free-
dom of expression and the freedom of assembly/association” (Møller
12 M. D. Bonner et al.
and Skaaning 2013, p. 83). More research is needed about the bonds
between democracy and rights and the meaning and prospects of signs
of democratic decay. Yet, given the central role of the police in citi-
zens’ experience of rights, it is important that policing be a part of this
research.
All in all, two decades after Diamond questioned whether the wave
of democratization was starting to face “death by a thousand subtrac-
tions” (Diamond 1997, p. 40), seemingly far from these concerns, the
literature on police democratization remains mostly unchanged. It con-
tinues to rely on generic premises and assumptions that seem at best
ungrounded, and problematic—if not flawed—at worst. Not only has the
literature assumed the existence of models of democratic policing, tak-
ing for granted that policing in established democracies is by definition
democratic, but it also advocates for transferring such models to other
countries (Müller, Chapter 9). In this we agree with Krastev’s (2016,
p. 36) critique of some of the democratization literature, which, he argues,
assumes “consolidated democracy cannot backslide and that at the heart
of the current crisis is a failure of liberal pedagogy.” Instead, we need to
better conceptualize the relationship between democracy and the police.
Police abuse is defined and constrained by particular conceptions of
democracy. Without taking this connection seriously we risk widening
the gap between theories of democracy and people’s lived experience.
This gap can best be mended not merely by convincing marginalized
communities to trust in liberal democratic institutions or tweaking their
procedures, but by integrating policing and police abuse into the con-
cept and structures of democracy as a whole. Across political science sub-
fields, the inclusion of policing into studies of democracy can build more
robust understandings of inclusion, rights, participation, procedures, and
institutions. In the next section, we look more closely at how this can be
achieved.
Citizenship
Expanding the franchise and guaranteeing fundamental protections to
life, equality, and freedom of expression have been staples of ideal cit-
izenship under liberal democracy. In turn, theorists of participatory
democracy have emphasized the intrinsic value of citizen involvement
and deliberation (Pateman 1970). Only active participation and the pro-
tection of rights, it is the consensus, can prevent democracy from under-
mining itself (Schwartzberg 2014). However, participation requires
admission and the recognition of political membership.
Citizenship involves full membership in a political community, with
duties and entitlements to participate in decisions determining a peo-
ple’s fate (Bellamy 2008, p. 3). Definitions of who counts as a polity’s
full member lie at the heart of the citizenship puzzle, one that continues
to be given contingent, “pragmatic” solutions (Dahl 1990, p. 45). While
a necessary condition, the formal recognition of citizenship is not suffi-
cient for the effective exercise of its duties and entitlements, as myriad
obstacles make it difficult for the poor, or members of religious or eth-
nic minorities, or people with certain political perspectives to have their
voices respected (see Schneider, Chapter 2; Seri and Lokaneeta, Chapter
3; Dupuis-Déri, Chapter 4). Theorists have promoted alternative mech-
anisms to make representative democracy more inclusive of minorities
(Kymlicka 1995). Still, as in the experience of countless black, Latino,
and native American victims of police abuse in the US attests, racism,
structural inequalities, and the provision of public order by the police
stand in the way of participating in politics and fully enjoying the legal
protections of citizenship (see Davenport et al., Chapter 7).
The study of expressions of citizenship in political science
tends to encompass legal traditions and classical forms of political
14 M. D. Bonner et al.
actors in public spaces in Montréal, Québec and how the term has high-
lighted the limits this police practice places on selective citizens’ freedom
of assembly and expression. He argues that police use arrests and mass
arrests, both preemptively and during protests, to silence political per-
spectives they perceive as illegitimate or criminal. This police repression,
he shows, corresponds with the protesters’ political perspectives, not
their tactics. It has disproportionately affected anarchist and alter-globali-
zation protesters.
In addition to the policing of certain categories of citizens, with the
number of world migrants and refugees at its global historical peak,
liberal democracies now host millions of foreign residents, many with-
out a legally recognized status, excluded from the protection of the
law. Intertwined with domestic forms of exclusion, visible and invisible
barriers target immigrants and refugees or those deemed to be “immi-
grants.” Whether it is Mexicans in the United States, or North Africans
in Europe, racialization and criminalization keep many in a legally hybrid
territory or directly outside the law.
In Chapter 2, Schneider examines this “policing of racial boundaries”
in France. Her chapter reveals the colonial and racialized roots of police
abuse aimed at “immigrants,” particularly (but not exclusively) Algerians.
She traces the shifting legal status and policing practices aimed at these
communities through the colonial period, World War Two, the post-
war/Algerian independence period, to the present day politics of anti-
immigration and insecurity. The police abuse she finds includes examples
of torture, arbitrary beatings and killings, and racialized incarceration,
all of which have involved significant impunity for the police. Through
this history she shows how police abuse defines the form of citizenship
and democracy experienced by those communities deemed “immigrant”
(even if born in France) and, referencing recent terrorist attacks, poten-
tially for many other people in France.
As Schneider’s chapter shows, states have perfected legal and polic-
ing mechanisms that lead to the criminalization of asylum seekers and
refugees, despite the progressive recognition of their rights by interna-
tional law, excluding millions of people from basic legal protections. As
millions survive in a legal no man’s land, at the mercy of police, border
patrol, or military agents, the “inadequacy” of current conceptions and
policies regarding citizenship come to the forefront (Arnold 2007), as do
the challenges of political membership and “the rights of others,” as they
relate to migrants and refugees (Benhabib 2004). As the nuanced access
16 M. D. Bonner et al.
Accountability
Linked to the lived experience of citizenship and democracy is accounta-
bility. When police abuse their authority and are not held to account, the
boundaries of democracy become apparent for those people and commu-
nities affected. It reveals democratic accountability to be an institutional
act used to mediate legal transgressions between those with power. In
contrast, those who are politically, socially, or economically marginalized
find they are “policed” with authoritarian practices, which, as noted in
our definition of “police abuse,” may or may not be defined as illegal,
but certainly limit selective citizens’ rights.
The dominant political science literature is primarily concerned
with the manner in which state institutions check government power.
Concepts such as “delegative” or “hybrid” democracy and “competi-
tive authoritarianism” refer to elected governments that, between elec-
tions, are subject to few institutional checks on their power (O’Donnell
1994; Levitsky and Way 2002). Similarly, studies of the global decline in
democracy hinge their evaluation on government accountability (Plattner
2015; Fukuyama 2015, p. 12). This is because accountability is funda-
mental to the rule of law, and the rule of law is regarded as a defining
feature of liberal democracy.
In theory, the law holds all citizens to account under the “rule of
law.” Ideally, this refers to accountability to “democratic” laws, in the
sense that they uphold political and civil rights and do not dispropor-
tionately punish the poor and marginalized (Pinheiro 1999; O’Donnell
1999). Unsurprisingly then, in the political science literature, the judi-
ciary becomes a central institution of accountability, as it is charged with
the responsibility to determine wrongdoing and punish those who break
the law. Political scientists also concentrate their studies on the most
democratic options for the wording of constitutions and laws, which
the judiciary is to enforce. If mentioned at all, police are portrayed as a
bureaucratic institution that must be “useable,” follow directions from
the elected government in power, and are confined in their powers by
1 INTRODUCTION 17
the rule of law. The legislature and the judiciary presumably hold the
police accountable for the protection of civil and political rights.
However in practice, for most people, the police are the first arbitra-
tors of the application and interpretation of the rule of law. At the same
time, in most democracies, police are not, themselves, fully subject to the
rule of law, as the norms that pertain to police powers and their execu
tion rely heavily upon police discretion and acceptance of police justi-
fications. Most political science studies assume that the government
controls the police in much the same way as they do other branches of
the bureaucracy, and thus governments are held accountable for police
actions, and police answer to the government and the judiciary. This
then frees political science studies of democracy to focus their attention
on the legislature and judiciary, with little attention to the police.
Yet, the policing literature tells us that the police have considerable
discretion in how they function. They might choose to apply the law (or
not) based on race, sexual identity, or class, or more positively, in one
study of protest policing in Great Britain, police refrained from enforc-
ing many laws during protests in order to avoid inciting violence
(Waddington 1998, p. 119). In some countries, police have a great
deal of autonomy from civilian control (Marenin 1996, pp. 10–13). In
Chapters 5, 6 and 7, Bonner, Squillacote and Feldman, and Davenport,
McDermott, and Armstrong examine how we can better understand
democratic accountability with police abuse in mind. While the chapters
raise diverse issues, they all highlight one key question: Are liberal dem-
ocratic institutional mechanisms of accountability sufficient for democ-
racy? The chapters in this volume argue that, in the case of police abuse,
they are not.
First, ideas matter. Judicial and government accountability require,
as a prerequisite, that both the state and society agree that police abuse
or wrongdoing has occurred. If police actions (regardless of how brutal
outsiders might perceive them) are not viewed by the state and society as
excessive, then it is unlikely that police will be held accountable. As Janet
Chan (1996) explains, drawing on Bourdieu, police culture and abuses
(habitus) reflect in part what society will tolerate (the “field” of polic-
ing). This is particularly true when such actions are considered within
the realm of police discretion, limited only by the officer’s ability to jus-
tify her or his actions. Beginning with the issue of police abuse we see
that “discursive accountability” is as important as institutional account-
ability (Bonner 2014). Discursive accountability is when state, media,
18 M. D. Bonner et al.
Socioeconomic (In)Equality
While not central to all definitions of democracy, many scholars of liberal
democracy argue that at least a certain degree of socioeconomic equality
is needed in order to maintain democracy (e.g., Linz and Stepan 1996;
Beetham 1999, p. 63). Scholars of social democracy go further, argu-
ing that greater socioeconomic equality is a central goal of democracy
because it is necessary in order to ensure that all citizens have the abil-
ity to participate in politics (Bobbio 1996). Yet there is no consensus on
the appropriate levels of socioeconomic equality needed for democracy
or how inequalities (and the tensions they provoke) should be managed.
Similar to citizenship and accountability, police abuse plays an impor-
tant role in reinforcing the dominant understandings of the bound-
aries of socioeconomic inequality in democracy and in particular
20 M. D. Bonner et al.
public protests that oppose neoliberal economics are more likely to face
police repression.
Engaging critically with the political economy, postcolonial, and neo-
colonial horizon reveals the role of policing and law and (dis)order in
state-making, reinforcing mechanisms of social control over histori-
cally colonized peoples—not only in the Global South. The established
democracies of North America and Europe have their “own ‘south,’ a
racialized world of the poor, excluded, and criminalized” (Comaroff
and Comaroff 2006, p. 37). When new security threats are identified,
the nature of policing and justifications for police abuse expand, as do its
threatening implications for democracy.
The US-led shift of security paradigms from warfighting to crime-
fighting leads to a qualitative change in the nature of policing. Thus,
“the ‘state monopoly of murder’ of the warfare state becomes the state
monopoly of global discipline and surveillance of the crimefare state”
(Andreas and Price 2001, pp. 51–52). With this renewed focus on crime,
liberal democracies legitimize neocolonial ways of intervening widely
through nonlethal forms of discipline, which turn increasingly lethal
for those labeled as “criminal,” as the chapters by Schneider, Seri and
Lokaneeta, Clarke, and Müller in this volume illustrate. This is especially
the case during neoliberalized “moral panics,” to borrow from Stuart
Hall et al. (1978), when the state (or its police agents) perceives the
social order being challenged—as the increasing number of police kill-
ings of African Americans in the United States demonstrates. This raises
questions such as: How do those most affected by police abuse react and
assert agency? and what are the consequences, both for the victims and
for democracy?
Linking together our reconceptualizations of citizenship, accountabil-
ity, and socioeconomic (in)equality, we find that the often interconnect-
ing objectives of particular political economies, (neo)colonial projects,
state building, and security threats require specific roles for the police.
In turn, these expectations for police play a fundamental role in defining
that which is considered police abuse, and thus the boundaries of citi-
zenship (rights and political participation), as well as the reach of formal
and informal mechanisms of accountability. From this perspective, reduc-
ing police abuse as we have defined it in this volume, requires reflection
on the types of political-economic systems and associated (neo)colonial
practices that may encourage or discourage it. Additionally, it is necessary
to expose the mechanisms of accountability, often grounded in implicit
1 INTRODUCTION 23
Conclusion
Police abuse has been curiously absent or marginalized in most of the
political science literature on democracy, where it remains treated mostly
as instrumental, neutral law enforcement. Yet cases such as Michael
Brown’s pose important disciplinary challenges. Policing should not be
left to analysis by criminologists and sociologists alone; policing is funda-
mental to political science, a fact acknowledged in the earlier science of
government, the police science, seminal works in political science in the
1960s through the 1980s, and yet ignored or forgotten. As a discipline,
we work to categorize and conceptualize ideal and practical forms of
democracy that are inclusive, effective, durable, and just. However, with-
out an assessment of police abuse such studies remain incomplete. This
then limits our ability to adequately understand ongoing crises in estab-
lished democracies, democracy’s hybrid forms, and the global decline of
democracy. As we have shown, police abuse plays a central role in the
construction and lived experience of citizenship, accountability, and soci-
oeconomic (in)equality—all key aspects of democracy.
In the chapters that follow we explore these issues further, drawing
on case studies and examples from countries around the world. Together
this book is a call to political scientists, from all our subfield perspec-
tives, to integrate and take seriously police abuse as a defining feature
of democracy affecting its forms, reach, and boundaries. For nonpolitical
scientists, these chapters aim to contribute to the already rich discussions
of the relationship between policing and democracy.
References
Andreas, Peter, and Richard Price. 2001. “From War Fighting to Crime
Fighting: Transforming the American National Security State.” International
Studies Review 3 (3): 31–52.
Arnold, Kathleen. 2007. “Enemy Invaders! Mexican Immigrants and U.S.
Wars Against Them.” Borderlands 6 (3). http://www.borderlands.net.au/
vol6no3_2007/arnold_invaders.htm.
Bayley, David H. 2006. Changing the Guard: Developing Democratic Police
Abroad. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24 M. D. Bonner et al.
Beetham, David. 1999. Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bellamy, Richard. 2008. Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 2004. The Rights of Others. Aliens, Residents, and Citizens.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy
27 (1): 5–19.
Bobbio, Norberto. 1996. Left and Right: The Significance of a Political
Distinction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bonner, Michelle D. 2014. Policing Protest in Argentina and Chile. Boulder,
CO: First Forum (Lynne Rienner).
Chan, Janet. 1996. “Changing Police Culture.” British Journal of Criminology
36 (1): 109–34.
Clark, Rob. 2014. “A Tale of Two Trends: Democracy and Human Rights,
1981–2010.” Journal of Human Rights 13 (4): 395–413.
Comaroff, John L., and Jean Comaroff. 2006. “Law and Disorder in the
Postcolony: An Introduction.” In Law and Disorder in the Postcolony, edited
by Jean Comaroff and John L. Comaroff, 1–56. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Cooley, Alexander. 2015. “Countering Democratic Norms.” Journal of
Democracy 26 (3): 49–63.
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg, Svend-Erik Skaaning,
Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, M. Steven Fish, Adam Glynn,
Allen Hicken, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann,
Valeriya Mechkova, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Laura Saxer, Brigitte
Seim, Rachel Sigman, and Jeffrey Staton. 2017. “V-Dem Codebook v7.1.”
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven:
Princeton University Press.
Dahl, Robert A. 1990. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Daleiden, J. Robert. 2006. “A Clumsy Dance: The Political Economy of
American Police and Policing.” Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies and Management 29 (4): 602–24.
della Porta, Donatella. 1998. “Police Knowledge and Protest Policing: Some
Reflections on the Italian Case.” In Policing Protest: The Control of Mass
Demonstrations in Western Democracies, edited by Donatella della Porta and
Herbert Reiter, 228–52. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Diamond, Larry. 1997. “Is the Third Wave of Democratization Over? An
Empirical Assessment.” Working Paper #236, Helen Kellog Institute, March.
Diamond, Larry. 2015. “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession.” Journal of
Democracy 26 (1): 141–55.
1 INTRODUCTION 25
Dubber, Markus Dirk. 2005. The Police Power: Patriarchy and the Foundations of
American Government. New York: Columbia University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New
York: Vintage Books.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2015. “Why Is Democracy Performing So Poorly?” Journal
of Democracy 26 (1): 11–20.
Hall, Stuart, Chas Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts.
1978. Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London:
MacMillan.
Hinton, Mercedes S., and Tim Newburn, eds. 2009. Policing Developing
Democracies. London and New York: Routledge.
Hunter, Virginia J. 1994. Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits:
420–320 B.C. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. “Democracy’s Third Wave.” In The Global
Resurgence of Democracy (2nd edition), edited by Larry Diamond and Marc
F. Plattner, 3–25. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Isaac, Jeffery C. 2015. “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration.”
Perspectives on Politics 13 (3): 609–16.
Jones, Trevor, Tim Newburn, and David J. Smith. 1994. Democracy and
Policing. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Krastev, Ivan. 2016. “Liberalism’s Failure to Deliver.” Journal of Democracy
27 (1): 35–38.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2002. “The Rise of Competitive
Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 51–66.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2015. “The Myth of Democratic Recession.”
Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 45–58.
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and
Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-communist Europe.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in
Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Marenin, Otwin. 1985. “Police Performance and State Rule: Control and
Autonomy in the Exercise of Coercion.” Comparative Politics 18 (1): 101–22.
Marenin, Otwin. 1996. “Policing Change, Changing Police: Some Thematic
Questions.” In Policing Change, Changing Police: International Perspectives,
edited by Otwin Marenin. New York: Garland Publishing.
McCoy, Alfred W. 2009. Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the
Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
26 M. D. Bonner et al.
Citizenship
CHAPTER 2
The late great sociologist and social historian Charles Tilly believed that
civilian control of the coercive apparatus was key to democratic develop-
ment and stability. In contrast, the political science literature on democ-
racy barely mentions police (see Bonner et al., Chapter 1). Yet, as Tilly
has shown us, democracy requires that states exert control over the
repressive apparatus and do so as impartial arbiters between competing
networks of individuals. The less impartial, the more bound to particular
trust networks, the more likely a democratic state is to experience dem-
ocratic reversals. Even in stable democracies, some categories of citizen
remain more exploited and stigmatized than others (see also Seri and
Lokaneeta, Chapter 3 and Dupuis-Déri, Chapter 4). Members of more
privileged categories of citizens often favor punitive policing of the most
exploited and stigmatized groups. States dependent on the financial
Approximately half of this chapter is taken from various parts of the author’s
book: Schneider, Cathy Lisa. 2014. Police Power and Race Riots. Philadelphia,
PA: Pennsylvania University Press. Reprinted with permission of the University
of Pennsylvania Press.
C. L. Schneider (*)
School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, USA
Maurice Papon, for instance, eventually imprisoned for his role in the
arrest and deportation of 1560 Jews, was appointed the head of police in
Constantine, Algeria; Rabat, Morocco; and later Paris. Other Nazi col-
laborators given important posts include Maurice Sabatier (a pied-noir,
who should have stood trial with Papon, had he not died in 1989), Jean
Chapel (appointed superprefect in Constantine, Algeria), Pierre Garat
(head of Jewish Services during the occupation, transferred to Algeria in
1945), Pierre Somville (Papon’s right-hand man and cabinet head, trans-
ferred to Algeria in 1945), and Pierre-René Gazagne (a vicious anti-Semite
pied-noir) (House and MacMaster 2006, p. 35).
34 C. L. Schneider
Quadrula, 52;
Q. symmetrica, 55;
test of, 54
Quartan fever, a parasitic disease, 104 f.
Quartzites, Radiolarian, 87
Quasillina, 224
Quatrefages, de, 376
Quelch, 280
Quinqueloculina, 59, 65 f.
Quinqueloculine type, 67
Saccammina, 59, 63
Sacculus, of Antedon rosacea, 587;
of other species of Antedon, 588
Sagartia, 372, 375, 381;
S. troglodytes, 378
Sagartiidae, 381
Sagittal, 185
Sagittal ring, 78, 83;
plane, 414;
costae, 416 n.
Salenia, 538;
S. varispina, 538
Saleniidae, 530, 537, 558
Salivary gland of gnat in relation to malarial parasites, 105
Salpingoeca, 111, 122
Sand from sponges, a source of Foraminiferal tests, 62
Sand, René, on Suctoria, 162
Sand-dollar, 542
Sand-urchin, 529
Sanidaster (a modified euaster in which a slender rod-like axis bears
spines at intervals along its length), 222
Sapropelic Protozoa, 48
Saprophyte, 33, 37, 90, 113, 119;
relation to brood-formation, 33
Saprophytic, nutrition, 33, 37;
Flagellata, 113, 119
Sarasin, C. F. and P. B., on the madreporic vesicle and axial sinus of
Echinoidea, 528;
on the relationships of the Echinothuriidae and Holothuroidea, 537
Sarcocystis, 98;
S. tenella, 108 n.
Sarcocyte, 96, 98
Sarcode (Dujardin's term for protoplasm), 3 f.
Sarcodictyon, 344;
S. catenatum, 342
Sarcodictyum, 79
Sarcodina, relations of, 48 f., 49, 50 f.;
distinction from Flagellata, 109
Sarcoflagellum, 80
Sarcolemma of stalk-muscle of Vorticella, 157 n.
Sarcophyllum (Pennatulidae, 361), 360
Sarcophytum, 248, 330, 333, 347, 349
Sarcosporidiaceae, 98, 108
Sarsia, 265, 272;
S. prolifera, 272;
S. siphonophora, 272
Sauropsida, egg of, 34
Scaphiodon, 137, 141 n.
Schäfer, on mechanism of ciliary action, 18 n.
Schaudinn, on exogamy in Foraminifera and Trichosphaerium, 34 n.;
on Protozoa, 46;
Archiv für Protistenkunde, 46;
on chromidia in Sarcodina, 52 n.;
on Trichosphaerium sieboldi, 54, 56 f.;
on bud-fission in Rhizopoda, 55;
on syngamic processes of Rhizopoda, 57;
on reproduction in Foraminifera, 67, 69 n.;
on Heliozoa, 71;
on Sporozoa, 94;
on life-cycle of Coccidiidae, 99, 101;
on relations of Halteridium and Trypanosoma, 103 n., 116 n., 120;
on relations of Acystosporidae, 106;
on conjugation in Flagellates, 116 n.;
on Trypanosoma, 120;
on Treponema, 120;
Fauna Arctica, 199 n.;
on Haleremita, 257
Schaudinnia arctica, 200
Scheel, on brood-formation in Amoeba proteus, 56 n.
Schewiakoff, on protoplasmic granules, 6 n.;
on geographical distribution of fresh-water Protozoa, 47 n.
Schiemenz, on the way in which Starfish open bivalves, 440
Schizaster, 556
Schizogony, of Coccidiaceae, 99 f., 101 f.;
of Haemosporidae, 102;
of Acystosporidae, 104 f.
Schizogregarinidae, 97
Schizomycetes, 36 f., 44
Schizont, 99;
of Acystosporidae, 103, 104 f.
Schizopathes, 408
Schizophytes, relations of, 48
Schizotricha (Ciliata), 138;
S. socialis, branched tube of, 152;
S. dichotoma (Plumulariidae, 279), 276
Schlumberger, on dimorphism of Foraminifera, 67
Schneider, on Sporozoa, 94
Schrammen, 215 n.
Schröter, on Myxomycetes, 93 n.
Schuberg, on cilia and ciliary motion, 18 n., 141 n.
Schultze, Max, on Protozoa and on protoplasm, 46;
on structure of Foraminifera, 62
Schulze, F. E., on Heliozoa, 71;
on Sponges, 167, 197 n., 199, 200;
on Spongicola, 318
Schütt, on Dinoflagellata ("Peridiniales"), 119, 132
Sclerobase, 371, 407
Scleroblast, 171, 330
Scleroderm, 371
Sclerogorgiidae, 351
Sclerophytum, 330, 336, 348, 349;
S. querciforme, 348
Scopula, 141 n.
Scuta buccalia, of Ophiothrix fragilis, 485
Scutellidae, 549
Scyphidia, 138, 158;
S. scorpaenae, Zooxanthella symbiotic in, 125
Scyphistoma, 317
Scyphomedusae, 310 f.
Scyphozoa, 310 f.;
colour, 310;
food, 311;
phosphorescence, 311;
reproduction, 316;
size, 310;
structure, 312;
symbiosis, 311
Scytophorus, 380
Sea, luminosity or phosphorescence, produced by Cystoflagellata,
132, 134;
by Dinoflagellata, 132;
red colour of, due to Dinoflagellata, 132
Sea-anemones, 326, 365, 377
Sea-cucumbers (= Holothuroidea), 561
Sea-fans (= species of Gorgonacea), 350
Sea-lilies (= Crinoidea), 580 f.
Sea-pens, 326, 358
Sea-pansy, 364
Sea-urchins(= Echinoidea), 503;
ovum of, 7
Secondary body-cavity (= Coelom, q.v.)
Secondary spines, of Echinus esculentus, 506;
of Cidaridae, 532;
of Colobocentrotus, 532;
of Heterocentrotus, 532;
of Echinocardium cordatum, 550
Secretion, 13
Segmentation, 32 n.;
of schizont of Acystosporidae, 104;
of oosperm, 104 f.;
of zygotomeres, 104 f.;
of reproductive cells of Volvox, 126, 127;
telolecithal, 133 n.
Semaeostomata, 323
Semon, on the phylogeny of Echinodermata, 622
Semper's larva, 405
Senility in life-cycle of Ciliata, 148
Senn, on Flagellates, 119
Sense-organs of Metazoa, 40
Sensory cilia, 141
Septum, protoplasmic, in Dicystic Gregarines, 97, 98 f.;
calcareous, of Madreporaria, 370
Seriatopora, 401
Sertularia, 278;
S. abietina, 278
Sertulariidae, 278
Serumsporidium, 89
Sex, binary (= syngamy with marked inequality between the pairing-
cells), 33 f.;
of Pterocephalus, 99;
of Stylorhynchus, 99, 100;
of Coccidiaceae, 97 f., 99 f.;
of Haemosporidae, 102 f.;
of Sarcocystis tenella, 108 n.;
of Volvocaceae, 128 f.;
of Eudorina, 129;