Résumés
Résumé
Cet article soulève les questions suivantes : peut-on parler d’une activité policière excessive dans nos sociétés contemporaines ou, plus précisément, d’une police qui aille à l’encontre de la jouissance/production de liberté et de sécurité ? C’est dans le contexte de deux tendances intimement liées, discernables dans les relations entre l’activité de police (le policing), la sécurité et la gouvernance civile, que ces questions sont explorées. Ces deux tendances sont les suivantes : en premier lieu, l’intrication croissante des institutions de police (et du discours sécuritaire) avec un plus grand nombre d’organismes gouvernementaux et leurs programmes d’intervention ; en second lieu, l’avènement de réseaux au maillage plus ou moins lâche constitués d’organisations institutionnelles, commerciales ou bénévoles engagées dans la gouvernance de la sécurité. Je m’efforce de montrer que l’État se doit de tenir encore et toujours un rôle de premier plan dans la gouvernance (provision/réglementation) du champ de la sécurité, surtout parce qu’il est le plus à même de véhiculer une activité de police équitable et démocratique, seule susceptible de cultiver et protéger les libertés tant positives que négatives de tous les citoyens.
Abstract
This paper addresses the following questions: can contemporary societies be over-policed, or, more specifically, policed in ways that are injurious to the production of liberty and security? These questions are raised against the backdrop of two related tendencies that are discernible in relations between policing, security and civic governance. First, the deepening entanglement of policing institutions (and securitizing discourses) with agencies and programmes of government. Second, the advent of loosely coupled networks of state, commercial, and voluntary agencies involved in the governance of security. The paper argues that the state should continue to hold a prominent role in the governance (provision/regulation) of security, not least because it offers the most plausible vehicle for delivering equitable and democratic policing in ways that nurture and protect the negative and positive freedoms of all citizens.
Parties annexes
Références
- Alderson, J. (1979). Policing Freedom. Plymouth : McDonald & Evans.
- Blair, I. (2002). The Policing Revolution : Back to the Beat. New Statesman, 23 September, 21-23.
- Braithwaite, J. (1992). Good and Bad Police Services and How to Pick Them. In P. Moir & Eijkman, H. (ed.), Policing Australia. Sydney : Macmillan, 12-29.
- Crawford, A. (1997). The Local Governance of Crime : Appeals to Partnerships and Community. Oxford : Clarendon.
- Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality : Power and Rule in Modern Society. London : Sage.
- De Lint, W. (1997). The Constable Generalist as Exemplary Citizen, Networker and Problem-Solver : Some Implications. Policing and Society, 6, 247-64.
- Den Boer, M., & Wallace, W. (2001). Justice and Home Affairs : Integration Through Incrementalism ? In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (ed.), Policy-Making in the European Union (4th ed., 493-519). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
- Foucault, M. (1994). Dits et Écrits (vol. IV). Paris : Gallimard.
- Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, Massachussets : Harvard University Press. (texte français Denis-Armand Canal, Éditions Exils, Paris).
- Home Office (2001). Policing a New Century : A Blueprint for Reform. London : Home Office.
- Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York : McGraw-Hill.
- Johnston, L. & Shearing, C. (2003). Governing Security : Explorations in Policing and Justice. London : Routledge.
- Jones, T. & Newburn, T. (1998). Private Security and Public Policing. Oxford : Clarendon.
- Knemeyer, F. (1980). Polizei. Economy and Society, 9 (2) : 172-96.
- Loader, I. (1999). Consumer Culture and the Commodification of Policing and Security. Sociology, 33 (2), 373-92.
- Loader, I. (2002). Policing, Securitization and Democratization in Europe. Criminal Justice, 2 (2), 125-53.
- Loader, I. & Walker, N. (2001). Policing as a Public Good : Reconstituting the Connections Between Policing and the State. Theoretical Criminology, 5 (1), 9-35.
- Loader, I. & Walker, N. (2004). State of Denial ? : Rethinking the Governance of Security. Punishment and Society, 6 (2), 221-28.
- Neocleous, M. (1998). Policing and Pin-Making : Adam Smith, Police and the State of Prosperity. Policing and Society, 8 (4), 425-49.
- O’Malley P. & Palmer, D. (1996). Post-Keynesian Policing. Economy and Society, 25, 137-55.
- Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Rethinking Government. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
- Pasquino, P. (1991). Theatricum Politicum : The Genealogy of Capital-Police and the State of Prosperity. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (ed.), The Foucault Effect, (105-18). Brighton : Harvester.
- Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism : A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
- Rigakos, G. (2002). The New Parapolice : Risk Markets and Commodified Social Control. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
- Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance : Policy Networks, Governance. Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham : Open University Press.
- Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom : Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Shearing, C. & Stenning, P. (1983). Private Security : Implications for Social Control. Social Problems, 30 (5), 493-506.
- Skolnick, J. & Bayley, D. (1988). Theme and Variation in Community Policing. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (ed.), Crime and Justice : An Annual Review of Research, (Vol. 10, p. 1-37). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
- Van der Vijver, K. & Terpstra, J. (2004). Urban Safety : Problems. Governance and Strategies. Enschede : IPIT.
- Waever, O. (1996). Securitization and Desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (46-86). New York : Columbia University Press.
- Walker, N. (2003). The Pattern of Transnational Policing. In T. Newburn (ed.), The Handbook of Policing. Cullumpton : Willan.