| Summary: | The study examines all forms of policing in post-conflict Rwanda and Liberia, to establish the scale and nature of the various forms of policing and the manner in which they were adapting to the post-conflict environment. The data consists of semi-structured interview transcripts, focus groups, observation notes and images with providers of policing, users of policing and other key figures. The research examined: perceptions of the public, policing agencies and state as regards the internal threats to order and security; perceptions of the security agencies, government, diplomats and donors as regards the establishment of organised crime and terrorism; the availability and effectiveness of state and non-state policing; the capacity of the two governments to provide effective state civilian policing nationwide; policy options with most potential for national internal security given the practical realities of the two post-conflict countries. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in English in the presence of a local research colleague(s) and after permission had been granted by local government commissioners, local police commanders and local chiefs. With non-existent or unreliable voting/tax registration, random sampling proved problematic, so purposive sampling was used in interviewing users of policing (ensuring a balance between urban and rural environments, and of gender). For other data gathering, key figures were selected from those authorising and providing policing (state police agencies, commercial security, work-based security associations, youth groups and local authority security provision), and other professionals with insights into internal security and crime (government administration, commercial, legal NGOs, journalists, assembly members, jurists, academics). Every adult interviewed was told the purpose of the research, the background of the researchers and offered a summary of the findings, which was subsequently sent. They were asked for their consent in publishing their answers. All were offered anonymity but in practice very few sought it.
|
|---|
