People, police and procedural justice in Indonesia

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 26 November 2014, At: 07:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Policing and Society: An InternationalJournal of Research and PolicyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpas20

Gangnam Style versus Eye of the Tiger:people, police and procedural justice inIndonesiaSharyn Graham Daviesa, Adrianus Melialab & John Buttlea

a Department of Social Sciences and Public Policy, AucklandUniversity of Technology (AUT), Auckland, New Zealandb Department of Criminology, University of Indonesia, Depok,IndonesiaPublished online: 02 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Sharyn Graham Davies, Adrianus Meliala & John Buttle (2014): Gangnam Styleversus Eye of the Tiger: people, police and procedural justice in Indonesia, Policing and Society: AnInternational Journal of Research and Policy, DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2014.949712

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.949712

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Gangnam Style versus Eye of the Tiger: people, police and proceduraljustice in Indonesia

Sharyn Graham Daviesa*, Adrianus Melialab and John Buttlea

aDepartment of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology (AUT),Auckland, New Zealand; bDepartment of Criminology, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

(Received 28 January 2014; accepted 19 July 2014)

Indonesia’s police force is the fifth largest in the world, and it is one of the most brutal,corrupt and ineffective. Since the forced resignation of authoritarian President Suhartoin 1998, millions of dollars have been funnelled into police reform, with much of thisfunding coming from overseas donors such as the USA and Australia. Despite goodintentions and some limited but notable success, police reform has failed to delivertangible improvements in policing across the archipelago. There are many reasons forthe failure of reform efforts, but a contributing factor is the lack of robust academicresearch on what kind of reform will work best for Indonesia. Without research-ledreform, reform models have relied on the adaptation, or even wholesale adoption, ofoverseas models. As such, reforms have focused on delivering instrumental changeprimarily through improving the capacity of police to deter, investigate and solvecrime. That reforms have been instrumentally focused presupposes that policelegitimacy, fundamental to a well-functioning police service, rests on a public desirefor outcome-based policing in preference to procedurally just policing. Until now therehas been no research to contribute an empirical base to this assumption in Indonesia.To begin filling this void, long-term ethnographic fieldwork was conducted by the firstauthor to examine public perceptions of police. In evaluating citizen narratives, ourresearch shows that the procedural justice model of policing dominates assessments ofpolice over and above instrumental concerns. Part of the reason for the importance ofprocedural justice vis-à-vis instrumentality relates to kinships of shame that configurerespect as a foundation of social legitimacy. A large-scale quantitative study is neededto extend our findings beyond its ethnographic base, and if our findings are supported,reform efforts will do well to acknowledge that procedural justice policing willimprove police legitimacy in Indonesia more substantively than instrumental policing.

Keywords: police; procedural justice; Indonesia; shame; ethnography

Introduction

Despite Indonesia’s police force being the fifth largest in the world, only a handful ofacademic publications have been dedicated to this key institution (e.g. Meliala 2002a,Davies and Buttle 2014, Muradi 2014). As such, while it is widely acknowledged thatIndonesia’s police force is one of the most brutal, corrupt and ineffective globally, littleresearch is available to shed insight into such police shortcomings (International CrisisGroup 2012). A tangible effect of this lack of research is that reform efforts are devoid ofan empirical base and must therefore rely on the adaptation, or even wholesale adoption,

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Policing and Society, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.949712

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

of overseas models, often steered by foreign reform funders. Reforms have thus focusedon delivering instrumental change primarily through improving the capacity of police todeter, investigate and solve crime. A particular success of Indonesia’s police reform isseen in its anti-terrorism capabilities, a direct result of the influence of foreign funderssuch as the USA and Australia. That reforms have been instrumentally focusedpresupposes that positive public perceptions of police, a key antecedent of publicconfidence in police, public cooperation with police, public compliance with the law andperceived police legitimacy, at least in the West (e.g. Sunshine and Tyler 2003b, Murphy2009), rests on the primacy of public desire for instrumental policing. Until now there hasbeen no research to contribute an empirical base to this assumption in Indonesia.

While there is a solid body of work on procedural justice policing, research is limitedin non-Western settings. What the small pool of research does suggest is that in less-democratic/non-Western societies procedural justice concerns are less important thaninstrumental concerns in determining people’s opinions of the police. Reasons forprefacing instrumental concerns include: citizen disengagement from the law; limitedshared group membership; citizens not having the luxury of worrying about proceduraljustice; super-diversity; and a lack of public focus on individual democratic rights anddue process (Tankebe 2009a, 2013, Murphy and Cherney 2011, 2012, Sun et al. 2013).The key question addressed in this article, therefore, is whether Indonesia follows othernon-Western nations in that citizens form judgements about police primarily on the basisof outcome (e.g. if the police solve a crime), or whether, in contrast, such judgements aremade primarily on the basis of procedural justice concerns.

In examining this question, the article is divided into five substantive sections. Thefirst section outlines the methodology used to inform this article. Drawing on the firstauthor’s 12 months of ethnographic research spaced between 2008 and 2013, and theother authors’ collective knowledge of Indonesia and policing, the article analysesculturally contextualised data from a range of situations in Indonesia. It is thisethnographic approach, with its attendant richness beyond statistical probabilities, whichenables this article to make a significant contribution to policing research in general, andprocedural justice research specifically. After introducing ‘Gangnam Style’ policing in thesecond section, the third section dissects the concept of procedural justice. While definingprocedural justice, and exploring how procedural justice links to public perceptions ofpolice, public confidence in police, public cooperation with police, public compliancewith the law, and perceived police legitimacy, this section also highlights gaps in existingresearch on procedural justice. The fourth section introduces Polri, Indonesia’s nationalpolice force. Understanding Polri’s background, particularly its recent history as part ofIndonesia’s military, helps make sense of the challenges facing current police reform inIndonesia. The fifth section provides ethnographic data, primarily from Lombok, toassess whether people in Indonesia value procedural justice policing above instrumentalmodes of policing. Selected illustrative quotes from formal interviews and informalconversations are used as the site of analysis. This section shows the pre-eminence ofprocedural justice principles in discussions of policing, particularly quality treatment,quality decision-making and moral similitude. The article concludes by offering somereasons for the primacy of procedural justice policing vis-à-vis instrumental policing, andby encouraging police reform projects to extend their focus beyond outcome-basedmodels to additionally incorporate procedural justice principles.

2 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Method: the importance of policing ethnography

Ethnographic research rests on a researcher’s ability to live and engage with a communityfor a substantial period of time, eliciting information about social phenomena andobserving daily life. This investment in physical and emotional time pays off not in aquantitative sense, but rather in a qualitative sense, where an ethnographer bringsnuanced richness to a subject little interrogated, including by people within that socialmilieu. Indeed, as van Maanen (2011) notes, ethnography locates subjects in a widersocial, political, cultural and historical context than they themselves may be aware of.Policing in general, and in Indonesia in particular, is a topic ripe for ethnographicinvestigation; the sensitivity inherent in discussing public–police encounters (for instance,people may feel a sense of shame in having been involved with police and may not wantto divulge information to someone they do not trust) and the corporeality of suchengagements mean that detached quantitative methods of data collection that may neglectcultural context leave many aspects of policing unexplored.

Most policing ethnographies have been based in the West (Foster 1989, Girling et al.2000, Westmarland 2001, Behr 2002), with just a few studies focused elsewhere(Haanstad 2008, Kyed 2009, Sengupta 2010). With many developing nations in theprocess of reforming their police forces, more ethnographic material is needed to providereformers with an understanding of policing in diverse societies. Not only have policingethnographies tended to be based in the West, but they also focus mostly on police culture(e.g. Marks 2004). Moreover, such ethnographies tend not to explore citizen views ofpolice, with a few exceptions, including Brunson and Weitzer (2011), who examine howpeople structure their engagement with police in the USA, Loader and Mulchahy (2003),who categorise differing levels of public perception of the police in the UK, Muniz(2012), who explores how community members in the USA deal with police, and Stasch(2001), who looks at public dealings with police in West Papua, Indonesia. Gaugingpublic perceptions of police in a holistic sense is important because effective policinghinges on public cooperation with police, and the public are more likely to support policeif they feel their needs are taken into account. As such, this article contributes toknowledge on policing and procedural justice by providing citizen perspectives in a non-Western country.

The data for this article were primarily collected during the first author’s 12 months offieldwork in Indonesia spread between 2008 and 2013, with the most sustained period offieldwork being conducted in Lombok between July and November, 2011. Such a lengthof time is important for many reasons when conducting ethnographic studies, not least todevelop trust among participants that any information they divulge will remainconfidential. These ethnographic data are supplemented by Davies’ prior long-termfieldwork in Indonesia (Davies 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, Davies et al.2013b), and the subsequent authors’ extensive criminological research (Buttle 2003,2006, 2007, 2010, Buttle et al. 2010, Meliala 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b).

The ethnographic data were collected using a variety of methods, includingobservation of daily interactions between police and citizens, participant observationwith on-duty police and discussions with everyday Indonesians in the market place, onpublic transport, and at various rituals and ceremonies. Much of the collected data comefrom spontaneous discussion that resulted after events such as a public bus being stoppedfor a routine police check. More specifically, using convenience sampling for recruitment,semi-structured, opened-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted by the first author

Policing and Society 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

with 30 Indonesians from a variety of backgrounds. Roughly half of the participants werewomen, all were Muslim and the average age was 39, with the youngest being 18 and theoldest being 64. Interviews took around one hour, and participants were asked how theywould describe the Indonesian police force, what experiences, if any, they had with policeand if they were suddenly made Police Chief, what changes would they make to thepolice force. Analysis of multimedia sources such as social media and newspapers alsotook place, and one research assistant was recruited through a local university to assistwith the translation of newspaper articles focused on police. Having compiled thismaterial, data were analysed according to a thematic approach. This thematic approachenabled us to identify recurrent themes in our data and build our analysis from the groundup (cf. Boyatzis 1998). All names in this article are pseudonyms. See Davies (2011,2013) for further information on the first author’s ethnographic approach, data collectionand data analysis.

Weaknesses are inherent in any research methodology. In quantitative studies ofpolicing, and procedural justice in particular, low response rates are recurrent. Forinstance, Sunshine and Tyler (2003b, p. 525) had a response rate of 22% for their firstNew York City sample, and Jackson and Sunshine (2007, p. 221) had a response rate of18%. Moreover, in Western-based large-scale surveys, older, well-educated, whiterespondents predominate – the sample population in Jackson and Sunshine (2007,p. 221) was 99.3% white. Morgan and Newburn (1997) suggest that even the best surveysof public understanding of the police are unsophisticated because they requirerespondents to answer discrete questions, which often fail to reflect the true complexityof people’s beliefs. Indeed, asking direct questions such as ‘Have you ever shoplifted’,even if answers are privately entered into a computer (Jackson et al. 2012), risks notgetting a full picture. Moreover, in Indonesia, a nation with inefficient bureaucracy,quantitative studies that rely on electoral rolls, for instance, are exceedingly difficult,though not impossible, to conduct.

Qualitative studies, such as this one, also have limitations. The depth and richnessobtained through personal narratives comes at the expense of a large-scale study. Keyinformants can unduly influence findings if wider data are not considered. The analysis ofqualitative material is arguably more subjective than that of quantitative material, andmore difficult to extrapolate to wider contexts. Measures taken to reduce these limitationsin this study centre on the triangulation of data, where multiple sources of informationhave been gathered and analysed, providing extra validity to findings (Chadwick et al.1984, King and Liebling 2000). Further quantitative research is needed to extend ourfindings beyond its ethnographic base.

The primary setting for this study is the island of Lombok, selected both because itmirrors, as much as is possible, a microcosm of larger Indonesia in terms of ethnicdiversity, economic indicators, religion and history of conflict, and because of the firstresearcher’s existing connections. Lombok is marginally smaller than its more famousBali neighbour, at just under 5000 square kilometres. With a population of just over3 million, Lombok has a population density of 670 people per square kilometre, althoughin urban centres population density reaches 6600 people per square kilometre. MinorityHindu and Christian populations squeeze around a predominantly (86%) Muslim Sasakpopulation. While there is a small population of very wealthy people, 30% of Lombok’sinhabitants live in poverty, where poverty is measured as having an income of less thanUS$1.50 per day. Lombok has a recent history of civil unrest, particularly in respect toethnic conflict; however, like most of Indonesia most of the time, Lombok is a stable and

4 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

law-abiding place, which as Jansen (2008) argues is the kind of place where we need toextend our research of the security sector.

Gangnam Style policingEh, sexy lady,Op, op, op, op,Oppa Gangnam Style

It seemed strange to hear the above lyrics from Psy’s 2012 hit song Gangnam Style blarethrough the loudspeaker. What we had been watching on YouTube was a clip ofIndonesian police officers, crisply attired in dress uniform, practising drill. The drillsergeant, bellowing commands, sculpted the officers’ moves alternatively from marching,to saluting, to turning and stopping. The officers were marching on an expansive andbadly maintained concrete field, which provided no relief from the midday heat.Watching from the bleachers was a small crowd of people, possibly made up of off-duty officers. After 10 minutes of serious drill, the sergeant blew his whistle and theofficers froze. A loud speaker crackled awake, and the officers broke into a seeminglyspontaneous rendition of Gangnam Style, complete with horse-riding gallops.

Upon watching this, we (the first author and four Indonesian companions) broke intolaughter. It was funny not only because the police went from serious drill practice onemoment, to lip-synching lassoes the next, but also because this display was so contrary tothe aggressive reputation of Indonesia’s police force. Part of the armed forces until 1999,Indonesia’s National Police Force (Polri) remains dominated by hierarchical principlesand militaristic bravado, so often associated with police culture (e.g. Reiner 2000,Waddington 2003), and it has a record of human-rights abuses, systemic corruption andwidespread inefficiency. Indeed, just that morning, the Lombok Post newspaper had run acover story on police officers killing unarmed civilians in the troubled province of Papua.The contrast, then, between the general public perception of the police, and this jovialperformance, could really only be responded to with laughter.

After the laughter simmered down, comments were made such as: ‘Imagine that, thepolice seem just like everyone else’ (orang biasa); ‘Wow, they are quite good dancers’;‘They seem quite friendly and approachable’; ‘It’s great to see police being like normalpeople’. Discussion did not centre on the police being unprofessional or dishonourable,but rather the clip inadvertently seemed to bolster the viewers’ opinion of the police.Curious as to my companions’ response to a more official clip of Indonesian police, weclicked on the official Polri website. The website showcases the military might and powerof the police, exemplified in a clip that viewers are directed to open. The shortpromotional clip shows two members of the elite mobile police brigade (Brimob)belaying from a helicopter, fully kitted-out in military-style combat gear. Attached to thebelaying men are two large German shepherd dogs. The music playing in the backgroundis Survivor’s 1982 song Eye of the Tiger:

It’s the eye of the tiger, it’s the thrill of the fightRisin’ up to the challenge of our rivalAnd the last known survivor stalks his prey in the nightAnd he’s watchin’ us all with the eye of the tiger

Policing and Society 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

This song evokes figures of an impending Rocky-esque battle, where the good guys, andthe dogs, are about to triumph over evil. The film goes on to show Indonesian policeofficers setting off explosives, torching houses, conducting rifle drills, dragging beatenand bloodied suspects into waiting vans and patrolling conflict zones both on foot and inarmoured tanks. Viewers are then shown an inventory of the weapons the police use:H&K MP4; Benelli shotgun; Colt M4. Despite the heat, which frequently surpasses 100degrees Fahrenheit, the men, and they are all men, wear gloves, balaclavas, helmets, bodyarmour, boots and thick uniforms. They sit, stand and defend in this gear below theblazing sun. The final segment of the film shows a line of motorbikes; while the driversteers, his pillion stands behind him firing an assault rifle.

Initial reactions among the group to the Eye of the Tiger clip revolved around notionsof awe: ‘The police are so well-trained’; ‘Look at all those guns’; ‘Imagine being able toshoot while standing on a motorbike’. But discussions quickly moved to a sense offoreboding and fear: ‘You wouldn’t want to mess with those guys’; ‘They look prettymean and not very nice’; ‘I don’t think I would approach them if I needed help’; ‘Theylook like they are ready to beat people up’. While Polri is seemingly effective in sendingout a message that affirms they are well-resourced in military hardware and requisite skill,Polri fails to convey to this small group at least the notion of police as approachable,helpful or caring. Indeed, previous research has shown that the presence of paramilitaryequipment can have a negative impact on public perceptions of police (Buttle 2003,Waddington 2003). Such a clip on their official website thus undermines Polri’s slogan:Sahabat dan Mitra Masyarakat (Friend and Partner of Society).

Reactions among this group to these two clips suggest something potentiallyprofound about people’s reflections on policing approaches. While people watching theEye of the Tiger clip noted that police appeared well-resourced and trained, and as suchwould be able to deter, investigate and solve crime, the aggressiveness of the imageryresulted in prevailingly negative perceptions of police. In contrast, when viewing theGangnam Style clip, rather than view police as unprofessional and unable to perform theirduty, resulting opinions framed police as responsive, friendly and approachable. Theseclips, with their accompanying music, are metaphors for approaches to policing. On theone hand, the instrumental model of policing, popular in Indonesia, suggests that the bestway to increase police legitimacy is by presenting police as militaristic strong men whoare effective in deterring, investigating and solving crime (the ‘Eye of the Tiger’approach). On the other hand, the procedural justice model of policing suggests that thebest way to increase police legitimacy is to foster public cooperation and compliance (the‘Gangnam Style’ approach). Labelling these frameworks in terms of song titles isadmittedly superficial, but it signifies a way of thinking about two distinct approaches topolicing. For police reform programmes to be effective in Indonesia, an understanding ofwhich approach resonates most with people must constitute the foundation. Beforeexamining what data from Indonesia suggest, below we explore the literature surroundingprocedural justice and policing.

Procedural justice and policing

Quite simply, procedural justice involves: quality treatment (that is, police being polite,courteous and respectful in their relations with citizens); quality decision-making (that is,police making transparent, fair and just decisions based on fact); and moral similitude(that is, ensuring alignment between public values and police behaviour). Procedural

6 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

justice was first developed in the work of Lind and Tyler (1988), but extended in Tyler’s(1990) book, Why Do People Obey the Law? Tyler’s simple question, with complexanswers, heralded a proliferation of studies on procedural justice. Indeed, Tyler himselfhas subsequently co/authored over 100 articles concerning procedural justice (e.g. Tylerand Blader 2000, 2003, Tyler and Lind 2001, Tyler and Huo 2002, Tyler 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011a, 2011b, Tyler and Fagan 2008, Schukhofer et al. 2011,Jackson et al. 2012, Tyler and Jackson 2013).

Before Tyler’s 1990 book the predominant thinking was punitive and considered thatpeople obeyed the law solely to avoid being punished. As Weber (1978) suggests,legitimacy is not necessarily a matter of rationality, morality or justice but a willingness toaccept authority and obey rules because it is bearable to do so given the consequences.With this understanding of compliance, approaches to preventing crime logically soughtto impose tougher penalties to deter people from breaking the law. As such, it made senseto implement initiatives like ‘zero tolerance policing’ – where people are arrested forsmall crimes – and ‘three strikes and you’re out’– where offenders convicted of a thirdcrime, no matter how trivial, are given long prison sentences. However, such deterrencemodels have proved ineffective in reducing crime rates (Tyler 2007, 2008); peoplecontinue to break the law even when the chance of getting caught is high and thepenalties severe. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that harsh policing tacticsactually increase crime (Pruitt and Rubin 1986). Yet, despite the deterrence model ofpolicing failing to reduce crime, this model continues to dominate global law and publicpolicy (Sunshine and Tyler 2003b, Jackson et al. 2012).

What Tyler posited, in the wake of the failure of deterrence models of crimeprevention, was that whether people comply with the law or not has very little to do withtheir chance of getting caught and punished. So what is it that makes most of us,including hardened criminals, obey the law most of the time? Why do people feelcompelled to stop at a red light in the middle of the desert, even when there is minimalrisk of getting fined? What Tyler found was that people are most likely to obey the lawwhen they believe in the rightness of the law, and they feel that authorities are just in theirexecution of the law. Tyler showed that people evaluate the justness of the execution ofthe law primarily through the way in which they are treated by the police. For instance, ifsomeone is stopped by a police officer who politely asks why they are speeding, givesthem the opportunity to explain and hands them a speeding fine commensurate with theirinfringement, they are likely to feel more positive about the experience than if the officerhad arbitrarily issued a fine. In other words, if police employ principles of proceduraljustice (e.g. quality treatment, quality decision-making and moral similitude) whendealing with citizens, people are more likely to have positive perceptions of police andconfidence in police, and they are more likely to cooperate with police, comply with thelaw and to consider the police legitimate.

Tyler’s findings have been reaffirmed and extended in numerous subsequent studies.Since 2011 alone, over 25 refereed journal articles have been published with ‘police’ and‘procedural justice’ in the title. Much of this collective research has affirmed that, at leastin the USA and the UK, and recently Slovenia, the primary factor shaping people’sreactions to personal encounters with police is the procedural justice principles deployedby police when exercising their authority (Mastrofski et al. 1996, Reisig and Chandek2001, Tyler and Huo 2002, Sunshine and Tyler 2003b, Belvedere et al. 2005, Tyler andFagan 2008, Bradford et al. 2009a, Gau and Brunson 2010, Hinds 2009, Dirikx et al.2012, Reisig et al. 2013).

Policing and Society 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

The work on procedural justice has looked at why being treated well makes adifference to people’s perceptions of the police. The group value model partly explainsthis reaction in the USA by showing that procedural justice communicates to people thatthey are valued and respected members of society (Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler and Lind1992). A further reason why people respond positively to being treated well is becauseengagements with police are often moments of shame, and in such moments people arelikely to explicitly focus on how they are treated by authorities (Braithwaite 1989,cf. Davies 2014 for kinships of shame, Makkai and Braithwaite 1994). There are someexceptions to this line of thinking, though, such as Murphy and Cherney’s (2012) use ofBraithwaite’s (2003, 2010) theory of social distancing where if police are seen to beirrelevant people are likely to feel disengaged and disinterested and procedural justicepolicing has little impact on feelings of support for police.

A further substantive body of work has looked at the impact of procedural justice onpublic confidence in the police. US- and UK-based evidence shows that personal contactwith police and police visibility impact public confidence in the police (cf. FitzGeraldet al. 2002, Skogan 2006, Bradford et al. 2009a, 2009b). Myhill and Quinton (2010)argue that service-oriented models of policing, based on visible patrol, communityengagement, problem-solving and procedural fairness, can increase and maintain publicconfidence in the police. Bradford et al. (2009b) found in the UK that while poorlyhandled encounters with the public can negatively affect confidence in police, well-handled contacts can have small positive impacts. Vicarious experiences may be equally,if not more, important in shaping confidence in the police (Miller et al. 2004, Rosenbaumet al. 2005). While most studies have found that well-received contacts have positiveimpacts on public confidence in police, some research suggests police can do little toimprove opinions, regardless of behaviour (Skogan 2006). In addition, some work showsthat police, as representatives of the state, will always be viewed by some segments ofsociety with suspicion, regardless of their behaviour, and thus police can do little toimprove public confidence (Tyler 1990, Loader 1997, Waddington 1999, Sunshine andTyler 2003a, 2003b, Jackson and Sunshine 2007, Jackson et al. 2012). This latter findinghas particular resonance in conflict zones where police are specifically seen to repress andmarginalise certain communities on behalf of the state; future research aims to explorethis issue in the contested province of West Papua, Indonesia.

Other notable work on procedural justice has explored the link between proceduraljustice and cooperation with police (Tyler and Blader 2000, Tyler and Huo 2002, Murphyet al. 2008, Tyler and Fagan 2008, Tankebe 2009a, Murphy and Cherney 2011, 2012),and the relationship between procedural justice and public compliance with the law(McCluskey 2002, Murphy and Tyler 2008, Hough et al. 2010, Dai et al. 2011). Alsosignificant is the work exploring the link between procedural justice and policelegitimacy. This latter body of research has found that if people are treated fairly andwith politeness, they are more likely to view the police as legitimate (Lind and Tyler1988, Tyler and Lind 2001, Tyler 2003). If the police are perceived as legitimate, peopleare more likely to cooperate with the police and defer to police requests (Tyler 2007,Murphy and Tyler 2008, Hough et al. 2010).

Almost all work on police and procedural justice has been quantitative, primarilypsychological, and located within Western settings. Work specifically on police andprocedural justice outside Western democracies is scarce, consisting of just a handful ofarticles (Reisig and Lloyd 2009, Tankebe 2009a, Saekoo 2011, Bradford et al. 2012,Jonathan-Zamir and Weisburd 2013, Reisig et al. 2013). However, there is a growing

8 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

body of related work in China (e.g. Wu and Sun 2009, Sun et al. 2012, Sun et al. 2013)and some work on minority groups within the USA, the UK and Australia (Jefferson andWalker 1993, Tyler 2005, 2011a, Weitzer and Tuch 2006, Tyler et al. 2010, Murphy andCherney 2012). What this latter work shows is that instrumental concerns are moreimportant in shaping legitimacy than procedural justice concerns. One of the mostinteresting findings on procedural justice to come from outside the West is Tankebe’s(2009a) work in Ghana, where he found that in determining police legitimacy proceduraljustice principles were less important for citizens than police effectiveness (see alsoBottoms and Tankebe 2012, Tankebe 2009b, 2013). Tankebe’s findings make clear theimportance of geographically extending procedural justice research to show theapplicability limits of this model. Moreover, more qualitative research on proceduraljustice needs to be conducted to show nuanced reasons as to why such claims are, or arenot, made on procedural justice. To date, there are just three published articles usingqualitative methods to explore police and procedural justice, albeit data collectionmethods are limited to semi-structured interviews (Carr et al. 2007, Gau and Brunson2010, Elliott et al. 2012). What these articles collectively show is the richness inherent indiscursive analysis of procedural justice. For instance, qualitative interviews allowedElliott et al. to reveal discursive meanings participants attached to police contact.A substantial contribution of this article, then, is its extension of both the geographic andmethodological scope of procedural justice and police research.

Given the literature reviewed above, we might expect that for somewhere with apoorly functioning and highly corrupt police force like Indonesia, procedural justiceconcerns may be overshadowed by instrumental concerns. Before exploring this specificissue further, we first provide a police context.

Policing Indonesia

Indonesia’s national police force is referred to as Polri, an acronym from KepolisianNegara Republic Indonesia (The National Police of the Republic of Indonesia; Figure 1).Since Polri separated from the military in 1999, after four decades together, it has morethan doubled in size, making it currently the world’s fifth largest police force. With thestrength of around 400,000 personnel, Indonesia has a current police–population ratio of1:600. This ratio is better than most developing countries, and a substantial improvementsince the early 1980s, when the ratio was 1:1200 (Jansen 2008). Indeed, the current ratiois approaching the United Nations ideal of 1:500 (International Crisis Group 2012, p. 4).This figure is obscured, though, by the fact that Papua, a contested province in Indonesia,is the most heavily policed society in the world, with a police to citizen ratio of 1:100.A substantial increase in size has not coincided with an increase in policing ability.Moreover, women continue to make up a very small percentage of police officers,reaching less than 4% of total personnel. Police officers are relatively well-paid,especially in comparison with other government employees. In fact, over 90% of Polri’sbudget is spent on salaries, leaving very little money for other essential items of policework, including operational costs (Jansen 2008); police often justify acts of corruption onthe grounds that they need to get money from somewhere if they are going to put petrol intheir patrol cars. Despite a history of volatile military–police relations (Malley 2003), inpost-Suharto era Indonesia relations between security sectors are generally amicable and theirrespective roles clearly defined, with police being the key actor in enforcing on-the-ground

Policing and Society 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

security (Jansen 2008); this generalisation is not to downplay the significant and ongoingconflict between police and military in places such as Papua.

Much reform of Polri has taken place over the last decade, with assistance ofsubstantial foreign funding from the USA, Australia, Japan, the EU and New Zealand.Polri now has relatively well-trained and resourced special operation forces who focuspredominantly on transnational crimes, such as people trafficking, drug smuggling,money laundering and terrorism. Efforts at community policing have also been supportedas part of Polri reform, particularly by Japan and New Zealand. Despite this reform,however, Polri structure remains militaristic and strictly hierarchical, and Polri continuesto be plagued by a plethora of issues, including endemic corruption, blatant human rightsabuses, low levels of training and high levels of inefficiency. A brief read of InternationalCrisis Group reports illustrate these shortcomings (International Crisis Group2001, 2012).

Little scholarly attention has been paid to policing in Indonesia. Published material inEnglish that specifically focuses on police in Indonesia could be read in a few days(International Crisis Group 2001, 2004, 2012, Meliala 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b,Stasch 2001, Prasetyo et al. 2005, Rahmawati and Azca 2006, Villaveces-Izquierdo 2010,Davies et al. 2013a, 2013b, Muradi 2014, Buttle et al. under review). The materialpublished in Bahasa Indonesia on policing is also limited (Dajoh and Ismail 1997,Djamin 1999, Markas Besar Kepolisian Republik Indonesia 1999, Bhakti 2004). Evenwhen broadened to work on Indonesia’s security sector, little material specificallymentions police (Kristiansen and Trijono 2005, Jansen 2008, Kingsley 2010). Due tolimited research, there is little understanding of police organisation culture (e.g. formaland informal departmental missions, strategies, policies and procedures and styles of

Figure 1. Police in Indonesia (photo taken by Sharyn Davies).

10 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

administration and policing), occupational culture (e.g. values, norms, perspectives andcraft rules commonly found among officers) or how these cultures have influencedpolice–community relations in Indonesia.

Part of the reason for the lack of scholarly attention paid to the police is theirrelevance of police to the everyday lives of most Indonesians. As an experiencedforeign researcher commented:

You know, I was going to do my PhD on policing in Indonesia, but after a few months, Icame to realise that there was little point in focusing on police because for most people inIndonesia, the police are quite irrelevant and so I ignored them [the police].

The irrelevance of police for many Indonesians is made clear by Ibu Nisa, a 50-year-oldurban grandmother, who is even unsure as to the actual function of police:

Would I contact police if someone broke into my house and stole something? Oh, I don’tknow. Is that what you would call the police for? Well, I don’t think I would call the policefor that – actually, I don’t even know the number for the police, but I guess I could catch abus down to the police box to report it? But I don’t think I would. What could the police doanyway? How could they find the burglar? And of course I would have to pay police for theirtrouble. No, really, it’s much better to just let the problem go away. Although, sometimes, ifit is a serious crime, like a murder, then people take the law into their own hands (mainhakim sendiri). People don’t call the police or anything like that.

This reluctance to request police assistance and preference for a localised response tocrime are affirmed by Pak Rama, a Muslim man from Lombok in his thirties:

Well, you know here people take the law into their own hands (main hakim sendiri). Like ifsomeone is caught breaking into your house, the owners and the neighbours deal with it; theydon’t call the police. The people might take a 100 kg capacity rice sack (karung) and put abees’ nest (sarang saranga) full of bees in it, and then put the crook inside and tie the bagup. I have also heard about people handcuffing (diborogal) a crook’s hands together andthrowing him/her in the ocean to drown. You know, if a pickpocket (copet) is caught bypolice, they are lucky indeed because if the victims catch him/her they will take their ownrevenge and the crook will get beaten to a pulp (babak belur) or even wind up dead.

Narratives such as these make clear the importance of developing a model of policing inIndonesia that improves public perceptions of police, boosts public confidence in andcooperation with police, enhances public compliance with the law and increasesperceived police legitimacy. Moreover, these narratives attest to the value of developinga model of policing that reduces or even prevents vigilante behaviour.1 While there areexamples in Indonesia of customary approaches being used effectively in conflictresolution (Telle 2009, Braithwaite et al. 2010, Braithwaite 2011), there are also examplesof customary approaches being appropriated by those in power to the determent of locals(Avonius 2010). Moreover, main hakim sendiri can quickly turn to vigilantism, aprecarious system of social justice. Our research suggests that Indonesians have anattenuated approach to policing, that is people may be negatively disposed towardspolice, but see a social role for a fair and just police service (cf. Carr et al. 2007). Inacknowledging a legitimate role for police, what model of policing should reform projectsfocus on to improve police legitimacy?

Policing and Society 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Quality treatment, quality decision-making and moral similitude

Our fieldwork suggests that Indonesians value the consistent application of threeprinciples of procedural justice policing – namely quality treatment, quality decision-making and moral similitude – over and above instrumental policing concerns. Evidencefor this assertion is found in the consistent narration by people of how they were treatedby the police, with an almost wholesale neglect of the outcome of their engagement withpolice.

A foundation of the procedural justice model of policing is quality treatment. Qualitytreatment involves police being polite and courteous in their relations with citizens, andpolice treating people with dignity and respect (Sunshine and Tyler 2003b, Tyler 2003).For Bambam, a 26-year-old man, the quality of treatment he received from an officer,even after he broke the law, positively influenced his view of police. Bambam recountedan incident where he was riding his motorbike home late one evening and inadvertentlydrove on the wrong side of the road (melanggar jalur). Due to his mistake he was notsurprised when a police officer pulled him over, but he was surprised when the officerspoke politely and gave Bambam the chance to explain his actions. Rather than issuing afine, Bambam received a warning. For Bambam, this experience led to positive views ofthe police: ‘If all police could be like that, well that would be lovely’. Wulan, a 39-year-old Muslim woman, similarly noted the importance of police treatment: ‘Police should bepolite, especially traffic police. I have seen some traffic police who are not polite (taksopan) at all when they stop people’. Rachman, a Muslim man, also exhorted police to bepolite: ‘They have to use polite language because there are a lot of police who, when wetry to protest, just ask “Do you want to teach me? Who do you think you are? (Maumengajar saya? Lu kira lu siapa?)”. This is very rude’. Rachman went on to relate anexperience he had with police, and within this narrative we see the importance he placeson quality treatment:

Yes, I have had to deal with the police. Once when I was going back to my home town I wasstopped by the traffic police. I realised my registration was expired and that the motorbikehad no mirrors. I went to sit at the police post to wait but the officer said, ‘Don’t sit there; it’snot a public place’. Because he said that so rudely, I didn’t accept it and said, ‘In what waydo you protect society? You are not professional (tak profesional)’. And the officer said, ‘Idon’t care. Do you want to teach me? I already have a law degree (saya sudah S1hukum)’.We had a long quarrel (cekcok) then and I decided to go to court [to pay the fine rather thanpay a bribe]. I was really disappointed in that officer. Why didn’t he talk politely to me?Even if it is not a public place and I can’t sit there, then he should have still talked to mepolitely (dengan sopan). You can imagine when I had that long quarrel with the officer thatall the people around were looking at me and wondering what was going on. And I swore(sumpah serapah) because I was incredibly mad.

Rachman’s narrative is interesting on numerous levels. His matter-of-fact acknowledge-ment of driving unregistered and without mirrors shows the uphill battle police face inexerting authority and ensuring people obey the law. Of most interest for our purposeshere, though, is that Rachman does not question the fine per se, nor does he criticise theofficer for issuing the fine, or even complain that he was not allowed to sit in a particularplace. For Rachman, the most disappointing thing about the whole experience, and hislasting impression of the interaction, was the lack of politeness exhibited by the officer.Rachman’s focus on the importance of quality treatment is mirrored in the narratives ofBambam and Wulan above and resonates with previous work (Meliala 2001a), all of

12 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

which emphasise the importance of police displaying quality treatment in their relationswith the public. Such experiences reinforce the centrality of procedural justice principles.

Another key theme to emerge during fieldwork is the importance people place on thequality of police decision-making. Quality decision-making involves police makingdecisions that are fair, transparent and based on fact, not bias or opinion. Qualitydecision-making also relates to police being consistent in whom they stop, question, fineand arrest, and ensuring all citizens are treated the same. For Sari, a 32-year-old Muslimwoman, the greatest shortcoming of Indonesian police is their lack of quality decision-making, particularly the lack of fairness and transparency in setting fines for trafficoffences. Sari recounted an experience her brother had when stopped by traffic police.Her brother did not have a valid driver’s license and was asked to pay Rp500,000 (US$50;the Indonesian currency is the Rupiah and roughly Rp10,000 equals US$1). Not havingthat much money the police officer said ‘How about Rp100,000 (US$10)’? For Sari,‘these rogue (oknum) police officers are cheating (membodohi) society’. While Sariacknowledges the legitimate role of police and accepts that her brother should have beenfined, a lack of quality decision-making (and indeed a lack of moral similitude, which isdiscussed below), in this case the bartering of a bribe, makes Sari very disappointed in thepolice. A similar experience was shared by Maman, an 18-year-old high school graduate,who is also disappointed by the lack of quality decision-making deployed by police:

Yes, I have had experience with the police. The traffic police stopped me to check mydriver’s license and registration, which weren’t valid, and I wasn’t wearing a helmet. Theyasked for Rp50,000 (US$5) but I told a white lie (berbohong untuk kebaikan) and said I onlyhad Rp10,000 (US$1). Then they said ‘OK, that’s enough for morning coffee’. Imagine! It’sreally unprofessional. The police should be more decisive (tegas) in handling cases. Forinstance, the traffic police, if they really want to charge the people, then charge the people.Don’t cheat or extort (memeras) money from people.

Maman’s story is revealing in a number of respects. Maman almost proudly boasts aboutnot having a valid license or registration and not wearing a helmet and is almostincredulous that the police had the audacity to pull him over. He knows he is breaking thelaw, and he does not contest the application of the law per se: ‘Yeah people should wearhelmets because it’s the law’. While many Indonesians agree in principle with trafficregulations they are often cynical about the implementation of them. As one taxi driver inBali commented, ‘The police are only interested in your pocket. They are not interested inwhether you wear a seatbelt or not, they just want to take money from your pocket’. Morecritical of traffic regulations was one expatriate living in Lombok who heatedly said:

They [the police] can’t make me wear a bloody helmet. If I wanted my every move policed Iwould have stayed in Australia. I moved here to be free of all that stuff and damn it I will notwear a helmet when I am riding my motorbike.

While Maman does not take exception to the law, he is critical of police trying to extort asmuch money as possible. Of course Maman is complicit in this process of bribery; ratherthan insisting police issue him a formal fine, he pretends to have only Rp10,000. Whileboth Sari and Maman acknowledge the legitimacy of the law and the police, they wantpolice to employ quality decision-making thereby ensuring that fines (and even bribes)are fair, transparent and consistent.

Policing and Society 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

A third significant theme to arise during our research was the notion of moralsimilitude. By moral similitude we mean the alignment the public feels between theirviews of what is right and proper, and what police convey, through their attitudes andbehaviours, as to what is right and proper. People may believe that politeness is right andproper, and if they see police being polite, there is moral similitude. Conversely, if peoplebelieve that religious tolerance is right and proper, but perceive police to bedisproportionately stopping motorists with Islamic veils, there is moral dissimilitude(and indeed poor decision-making). Jackson et al. (2012) also found that a sense ofshared moral values between the public and police is important in building policelegitimacy. By expanding Tyler’s (1990) procedural justice model of public compliancewith the law to incorporate shared moral values, Jackson et al. (2012, p. 1063) argue thatif police are seen to ‘act in ways in conflict with social norms about fair treatment anddecision making, this generates a powerful cynicism: “If the police can behave unfairly,so can I”’ (Sunshine and Tyler 2003a, Jackson and Sunshine 2007). Alternatively, ifpolice demonstrate moral alignment with citizens – through procedural justice, includingrepresenting community values – then citizens will comply with the law more readilybecause they feel the values of police accord with their own sense of right and wrong(Jackson et al. 2012). Jackson et al. frame this representation of community values asmoral alignment. Rather than using moral alignment in this article, we deploy moralsimilitude to reflect the diversity of Indonesia, where multiple ethnic and religious groupsmay not necessarily share all specific moral codes. Similitude, or the notion that there isperceptible likeness or resemblance between moral codes, permits acknowledgement of adiverse range of moral codes.

Many people in Indonesia stress the importance of moral similitude between policeand public. For instance, Dian, a 34-year-old university graduate, revealed:

Well, I am really disappointment (sangat kecawa) in police because there are a number ofrogue (oknum) officers who lack any kind of morality (moralitas) and as a result theseofficers frequently break the law and they are easy to bribe (disuap). You know, if I waspolice chief I would train officers in human rights so that when police stop a motorbike, theywould not kick the driver or chase him/her; they are not allowed to do this. They must bepolite. Really, the morality of the police needs to improve so that officers do not breakthe law.

Dian is concerned about the morality of the police, noting that if police continue to beabusive towards the people they are supposed to be protecting, there will be nopartnership between police and the public, something essential to winning public supportfor the police (Sunshine and Tyler 2003b). A case that was reported in the media justbefore Dian made the above comments shows the potential damage of police notdisplaying moral similitude. On the second of October, 2011, the front cover of theLombok Post newspaper reported on the conviction of a police officer from the elitemobile brigade for raping a 12-year-old girl. The officer was sentenced to one and a halfyears in prison. Public outrage at both the abuse of power of the officer and the lightsentence he received created a moral chasm between the public and the police. Peopleinterpreted this case as evidence of the criminal justice system, and everyone involvedwith it, having no regard for everyday Indonesians.

While the above case of moral dissimilitude might appear obvious, it is not possibleto make a priori assumptions about what constitutes moral dissimilitude. For example, inMay, 2013, a Dutch journalist secretly recorded an Indonesian police officer demanding a

14 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

bribe and using this money to buy and drink beer while on duty. The clip was uploaded toYouTube. The official police response was swift; the officer was relieved of duties for 21days and banners appeared stating (Figure 2):

It is a crime to pay or receive a bribe (Pungli pemberi dan penerima sama sama kena sanksipidana). The payer will be jailed for 5 years and fined Rp15 million (US$1,500). Thereceiver will be jailed for 3 years and fined Rp15 million.

While many people in Bali and elsewhere saw this officer’s actions as yet another case ofunacceptable police corruption, and hence a display of moral dissimilitude, othersempathised with the officer. For instance, one taxi driver commented: ‘Police are poorlypaid so it’s only fair that the wealth of the country be redistributed. Bribes are a part ofIndonesian culture. Besides, the Dutch guy was breaking the law anyway’. This taxidriver felt a sense of shared morality with the officer, showing the complexity ofdetermining moral similitude. The fluidity of moral similitude speaks to its deployment tomeet various ends, rather than its redundancy.

Police legitimacy rests on police conveying moral similitude and as such police mustact ‘according to a shared moral purpose with citizens’ (Jackson et al. 2012, p. 1051).Dian’s call for police to embody morality, as well as public responses to the twoaforementioned cases, shows that Indonesians expect their police force to share moralsimilitude. However, deciding what is a shared morality is not necessary self-evident.Police corruption, for instance, may be despised at the same time that it is tolerated andeven accepted. So while it is clear that citizens want a police force that shares moralsimilitude there are contextual nuances that mean that what is translated as moralsimilitude is not always easy to decipher. Having examined the dominance of narrativesabout procedural justice over and above concerns about instrumentality, in the conclusionwe turn to address some specifics.

Figure 2. Photo showing penalties for bribery (photo taken by Sharyn Davies).

Policing and Society 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conclusion

This article started with a simple question: do procedural justice principles dominatecitizen thinking regarding policing in Indonesia over and above instrumental concerns?This is an important question to ask because until now Indonesian police reformprogrammes have operated on the assumption that legitimacy is tied primarily to policeability to deter, investigate and solve crime. Research based in the West has shown thatthe implementation of procedural justice principles is more important in shaping policelegitimacy than police effectiveness. Given the centrality of democratic principles,including concerns for due process, combined with already high levels of policelegitimacy, it can indeed be expected that in Western nations, where police are wellequipped to deter, investigate and solve crime, how police treat people becomes asignificant factor. In non-Western and non-Anglophone societies, research has contrarilyshown that procedural justice principles are secondary to instrumental concerns inshaping views of police (e.g. Tankebe 2009a, Murphy and Cherney 2011, Murphy andCherney 2012, Sargeant et al. 2013). In extending the literature on procedural justice, thisarticle has explored what happens in a super-diverse society where people are disengagedfrom police, and where police are ill-equipped and ill-trained to deter and solve crime. Itmight be expected, given the cultural context of Indonesia, that procedural justicepolicing would make little difference to public perceptions of police given the latter’ssignificant shortcomings. However, our in-depth, long-term ethnographic fieldworksuggests that it is precisely the deficiencies of Indonesian police that makes proceduraljustice concerns more influential in shaping public support for police than instrumentalconcerns. That Indonesians speak of how they were treated by police, rather than policeeffectiveness, is significant for future reform programmes. While resources still need tobe funnelled into operational training, dedicated focus on imparting procedural justiceprinciples will win the hearts and minds of Indonesians more successfully than currentefforts aimed primarily at developing police effectiveness.

In everyday narratives, Indonesians talk not about whether police solve a crime, butrather about police and their use of quality treatment, quality decision-making and moralsimilitude. Because most people in Indonesia only ever have contact with traffic police, itis the behaviour of traffic police especially that shapes public perceptions of police. Forinstance, while citizens resent the routine payment of bribes to traffic police, whatdisappoints people most is the negotiation of bribes; specifically the lack of fairness andtransparency involved in bribe setting. Were traffic police to operate in procedurally justways by being fair, polite and transparent, such actions would increase public support forpolice more profoundly than if police were able to stop people committing trafficoffences.

There are three key reasons why procedural justice concerns dominate public thinkingover and above instrumental concerns. The first reason relates to the importance ofkinships of shame (Davies 2014). Shame is a central organising concept in Indonesia andas elsewhere citizen interaction with police is a potential moment of heightened shame. InIndonesia this shame is not just attached to an individual but to one’s entire kinshipnetwork, extending to family, neighbours, teachers, community and even nation. Innarratives recounted in this article we see feelings of shame evoked by disrespectfulpolice behaviour at the heart of the formation of perceptions of police.

A second reason for the primacy of procedural justice is that social disengagementfrom police means that when people do interact with police it is police politeness, or lack

16 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

of it, that is remembered. This finding contrasts with work in other societies. For instance,Murphy and Cherney’s (2012) use of Braithwaite’s (2003, 2010) theory of socialdistancing shows that in some communities if police are seen to be irrelevant, people arelikely to feel disengaged and disinterested and procedural justice policing therefore haslittle impact on feelings of support for police.

A final reason for the prefacing of procedural justice in Indonesia relates to socialcontext. Writing of the group value model, Lind and Tyler (1988) found that when peoplein the USA identified strongly with police, both as individuals and as an institution,procedural justice mattered more than instrumental outcomes. It might be expected thanthat because Indonesia is a super-diverse nation, with over 350 ethnic groups and ahistory of intergroup conflict and dictatorship, a lack of social cohesion means thatprocedural justice concerns are overshadowed by instrumental concerns. However, ourresearch suggests that it might be precisely in situations when affinity between police andcitizens is tenuous that treatment becomes more important than outcome (cf. Cherney andMurphy 2013, Bradford et al. 2014, Murphya and Barkwortha 2014, Sargeant et al.2014). Part of the reason that procedural justice concerns come to the fore in such casescould relate to Indonesia’s guiding philosophy of Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity inDiversity); if police show respect for cultural and religious diversity they are seen to beupholding national values. Moreover, it is through police presenting an approachable selfthat Indonesians articulate a sense of pride in their police service. Indeed when policeofficers display procedural justice qualities people respond positively. In contrast tonegative comments regarding the official Polri clip set to the song Eye of the Tiger thatwas discussed earlier, responses to police officers performing Gangnam Style weresupportive of police. For instance, comments on the Gangnam Style YouTube clip areoverwhelmingly favourable and suggest that people want a police force that is humanand humane: ‘Oppa mobile police style’ (‘Oppa Brimob style’!); ‘Their creativity is great’(Kreatif bagus banget); ‘I have just discovered it. Our mobile police are cool’ (Baru tauada yang kaya gini. Keren buat brimob kita). Perhaps most heartening is the commentfrom someone whose faith in Indonesia was restored after watching the clip: ‘Indonesia isindeed great. Indonesia is indeed OK. I love Indonesia’ (‘Indonesia memang hebat.Indonesia memang oke. Aku cinta Indonesia’!). The emphasis of procedural justiceprinciples in policing protocols, particularly encouraging police friendliness, approach-ability, fairness, transparency and moral similitude, will thus be an effective way ofenhancing police–public relations and improving public support for police, somethingsorely needed in Indonesia.

AcknowledgementsThis article stems from a larger research project that the authors are working on in the field ofpolicing in Indonesia. The larger project focuses on police reform, the influence of donor nations inshaping the Indonesian police force, police corruption, police accountability and gender andpolicing. Thank you to RISTEK, the New Zealand Embassy in Indonesia and New Zealand’s policeliaisons in Indonesia for their support of this project. Thank you also to R, L, S, E and G for theirresearch assistance. Sharyn would like to thank the AUT Writing Retreat, Jennie Billot, SharonHarvey, Linda Bennett and Tom Davies for their feedback on earlier drafts of this article, andespecially the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments.

Policing and Society 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

FundingThe project has been funded through New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AUTand the University of Indonesia.

Note1. Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this additional advantage.

ReferencesAvonius, L., 2010. Reconciliation and human rights in post-conflict Aceh. In: B. Brauchler, ed.

Reconciling Indonesia. New York: Routledge, pp. 121–137.Behr, R., 2002. Police as life world: an ethnography of police-officers’ identity. Qualitative social

research, 3 (1), 1–13.Belvedere, K., Worrall, J.L., and Tibbetts, S.G., 2005. Explaining suspect resistance in police-

citizen encounters. Criminal Justice Review, 30 (1), 30–44.Bhakti, I.N., ed., 2004. Relasi TNI dan Polri dalam Penanganan Keamanan Dalam Negri (2000–2004)

[Military-police relations in handling state security]. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Politik LIPI.Bottoms, A. and Tankebe, J., 2012. Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in

criminal justice. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 102 (1), 119–170.Boyatzis, R.E., 1998. Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Bradford, B., et al., 2012. What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South

Africa. Regulation & governance. doi: 10.1111/rego.12012.Bradford, B., Jackson, J., and Stanko, E.A., 2009a. Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of

public encounters with the police. Policing and society, 19, 20–46.Bradford, B., Murphy, K., and Jackson, J., 2014. Officers as mirrors: policing, procedural justice

and the (re)production of social identity. British journal of criminology, 54 (4), 527–550.Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., and Jackson, J., 2009b. Using research to inform policy: the role of public

attitude surveys in understanding public confidence and police contact. Policing, 3 (2), 139–148.Braithwaite, J., 1989. Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Braithwaite, V., 2003. Dancing with tax authorities: motivational postures and non-compliant

actions. In: V. Braithwaite, ed. Taxing democracy. Aldershot: Ashgate, 15–40.Braithwaite, V., 2010. Defiance in taxation and governance: resisting and dismissing authority in a

democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Braithwaite, J., et al., 2010. Anomie and violence: non-truth and reconciliation in Indonesian

peacebuilding. Canberra: Australian National University E Press.Braithwaite, J., 2011. Anomie and violence in Indonesia and Timor-Leste, 1997–2009. Asian

criminology, 6, 51–68.Brunson, R.K. and Weitzer, R., 2011. Negotiating unwelcome police encounters: the intergenera-

tional transmission of conduct norms. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 40 (4), 425–456.Buttle, J.W., 2003. ‘What’s good for them, is good for us’: outside influences on the adoption of an

incapacitant spray by the British police. International journal of police science and management,5 (2), 98–111.

Buttle, J.W., 2006. Unravelling the “Velcro Effect”: is deterring assaults against the policeindicative of a more aggressive style of policing? International journal of police science andmanagement, 8 (2), 133–142.

Buttle, J.W., 2007. A constructive critique of the officer safety programme used in England andWales. Policing and society: an international journal of research and policy, 17 (2), 164–181.

Buttle, J.W., 2010. ‘Officer safety and public safety’ training the police to use force. In: J. Kuhnsand J. Knuttsson, eds. Police use of force: a global perspective. Praeger Security International.

Buttle, J.W., Davies, S.G., and Meliala, A., under review. To police Indonesia is to be corrupt:understanding the persistence of police corruption in contemporary Indonesia.

Buttle, J.W., Fowler, C., and Williams, M.W., 2010. The impact of rural policing on the private lives ofNew Zealand police officers. International journal of police science management, 12 (4), 896–606.

Carr, P.J., Napolitano, L., and Keating, J., 2007. We never call the cops and here is why: aqualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology,45 (2), 445–480.

18 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Chadwick, B.A., Bahr, H.M., and Albrecht, S.L., 1984. Social science research methods.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cherney, A. and Murphy, K., 2013. Policing terrorism with procedural justice: the role of policelegitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 46 (3),403–421.

Dai, M., Frank, J., and Sun, I., 2011. Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: the effectsof process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice,39 (2), 159–168.

Dajoh, E.M.F. and Ismail, S. (1997). Polisi Pamong Praja: Hari Ini dan Esok [civil service police:today and tomorrow]. Jakarta: Kantor Kentraman dan Ketertiban Pemerintah DKI.

Davies, S.G., 2007a. Challenging gender norms: five genders among Bugis in Indonesia. Boston:Thomson Wadsworth.

Davies, S.G., 2007b. Hunting down love: female masculinity in Bugis society. In: E. Blackwood,S. Wieringa, and A. Bhaiya, eds. Women’s sexualities and masculinities in a globalizing Asia.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 139–158.

Davies, S.G., 2008. The contradictions of Indonesian women’s participation in politics. In:S. Epstein, ed. Understanding Indonesia: foreign policy, Islam and democracy. Wellington:Asian Studies Institute, 23–32.

Davies, S.G., 2011. Gender diversity in Indonesia: sexuality, Islam, and queer selves. London:Routledge Curzon.

Davies, S.G., 2013. Understanding Indonesia’s complex bureaucracy: gaining a research permit.Journal of Asia pacific studies, 3 (1), 1944–1088.

Davies, S.G., 2014. Sexual surveillance. In: L. R. Bennett and S.G. Davies, eds. Sexing Indonesia:sexual politics, diversity and representations in the Reformasi Era. London: Routledge, 10–31.

Davies, S.G. and Buttle, J.W., 2014. Policing in Indonesia: exploring ways in which the legitimacyof the police may effect economic development and the prosperity of the Indonesian state.Wellington: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Davies, S.G., Meliala, A., and Buttle, J., 2013a. Ari’s audacity: how can you be a straight cop whenpeople just give you money. Inside Indonesia, 113. Available from: http://www.insideindonesia.org/feature-editions/ari-s-audacity [Accessed 20 April 2014].

Davies, S.G., Meliala, A., and Buttle, J., 2013b. Indonesia’s secret police weapon: perfectly coiffedhair and rose-pink cheeks underpin Polri’s latest policing tactic. Inside Indonesia, 111. Availablefrom: http://www.insideindonesia.org/current-edition/indonesia-s-secret-police-weapon [Accessed20 April 2014].

Dirikx, A., Van den Bulck, J., and Parmentier, S., 2012. The police as societal moral agents:“procedural justice” and the analysis of police fiction. Journal of broadcasting & electronicmedia, 56 (1), 38–54.

Djamin, A.L., 1999. Menuju Polri Mandiri yang Profesional [The limits of an independent,professional police force]. Jakarta: Yayasan Tenaga Kerja.

Elliott, I., Thomas, S.D.M., and Ogloff, J.R.P., 2012. Procedural justice in contacts with the police:the perspective of victims of crime. Police practice and research, 13 (5), 437–449.

FitzGerald, M., et al., 2002. Policing for London. Cullompton: Willan.Foster, J., 1989. Two stations: an ethnographic study of policing in the inner city. In: D. Downes,

ed. Crime and the city: essays in memory of John Barron Mays. London: Macmillan, 128–153.Gau, J.M. and Brunson, R.K., 2010. Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: a study of

inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice quarterly, 27 (2), 255–279.Girling, E., Loader, I., and Sparks, R., 2000. Crime and social control in Middle England:

questions of order in an English town. London: Routledge.Haanstad, E.J., 2008. Constructing order through chaos: a state ethnography of the Thai police.

The University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin, MI.Hinds, L., 2009. Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of police and criminal

psychology, 24 (1), 10–21.Hough, M., et al., 2010. Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Policing: a journal of

policy and practice, 4, 203–210.International Crisis Group, 2001. Indonesia: national police reform [online]. Available from:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/013-indonesia-national-police-reform.aspx [Accessed 14 September 2013].

Policing and Society 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Crisis Group, 2004. Indonesia: rethinking internal security strategy [online]. Availablefrom: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/090-indonesia-rethinking-internal-security-strategy.aspx [Accessed 3 January 2014].

International Crisis Group, 2012. Indonesia: the deadly cost of poor policing [online]. Availablefrom: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/218-indonesia-the-deadly-cost-of-poor-policing.aspx [Accessed 20 April 2013].

Jackson, J., et al., 2012. Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legalinstitutions. British journal of criminology, 52 (6), 1051–1071.

Jackson, J. and Sunshine, J., 2007. Public confidence in policing: a neo-Durkheimian perspective.British journal of criminology, 47, 214–233.

Jansen, D., 2008. Relations among security and law enforcement institutions in Indonesia.Contemporary Southeast Asia: a journal of international and strategic affairs, 30 (3), 429–454.

Jefferson, T. and Walker, M.A., 1993. Attitudes towards the police of ethnic minorities in aprovincial city. British journal of criminology, 33, 251–266.

Jonathan-Zamir, T. and Weisburd, D., 2013. The effects of security threats on antecedents of policelegitimacy: findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of research in crime anddelinquency, 50 (1), 3–32.

King, R.D. and Liebling, A., 2000. Doing research in prisons. In: R.D. King and E. Wincup, eds.Doing research on crime and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 431–454.

Kingsley, J., 2010. Tuan Guru, community and conflict in Lombok, Indonesia. Melbourne:University of Melbourne.

Kristiansen, S. and Trijono, L., 2005. Authority and law enforcement: local government reformsand security systems in Indonesia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27 (2), 236–254.

Kyed,H.M., 2009. Community policing in post-warMozambique.Policing and society, 19 (4), 354–371.Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R., 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Loader, I., 1997. Policing and the social: questions of symbolic power. The British journal of

sociology, 48 (1), 1–18.Loader, I. and Mulcahy, A., 2003. Policing and the condition of England: memory, politics and

culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Makkai, T. and Braithwaite, J., 1994. The dialectics of corporate deterrence. Journal of research in

crime and delinquency, 31 (4), 347–373.Malley, M.S., 2003. Indonesia in 2002: the rising cost of inaction. Asian survey, 43 (1), 135–146.Marks, M., 2004. Researching police transformation: the ethnographic imperative. British journal of

criminology, 44 (6), 866–888.Markas Besar Kepolisian Republik Indonesia, 1999. Sejarah Kepolisian di Indonesia [The history

of police in Indonesia]. Jakarta: Mabes Polri.Mastrofski, S.D., Snipes, J.B., and Supina, A.E., 1996. Compliance on demand: the public’s

responses to specific police requests. Journal of crime and deviance, 33, 269–305.McCluskey, J.D., 2002. Coercion, procedural justice, and compliance in police-citizen encounters.

Albany: State University of New York.Meliala, A., 2001a. The notion of sensitivity in policing. International journal of the sociology of

law, 29 (2), 99–111.Meliala, A., 2001b. Police as military: Indonesia’s experience. Policing: an international journal of

police strategies and management, 24 (3), 420–432.Meliala, A., 2002a. Local colours for Indonesian national police. Policing and society, 12 (2), 153–161.Meliala, A., 2002b. Research note, policing and society. Policing and society: an international

journal of research and policy, 12 (2), 153–161.Miller, J., et al., 2004. Public opinion of the police: the influence of friends, family and new media.

New York: Vera Foundation.Morgan, R. and Newburn, T., 1997. The future of policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Muniz, A., 2012. Disorderly community partners and broken windows policing. Ethnography, 13

(3), 330–351.Muradi., 2014. Politics and governance in Indonesia: the police in the Era of Reformasi. London:

Routledge.Murphy, K., 2009. Public satisfaction with police: the importance of procedural justice and police

performance in police–citizen encounters. Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology,42 (2), 159–178.

20 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Murphy, K. and Cherney, A., 2011. Fostering cooperation with the police: how do ethnic minoritiesin Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian and New Zealand journalof criminology, 44 (2), 235–257.

Murphy, K. and Cherney, A., 2012. Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society.British journal of criminology, 52 (1), 181–201.

Murphy, K., Hinds, L., and Fleming, J., 2008. Encouraging public cooperation and support forpolice. Policing and society, 18 (2), 136–155.

Murphy, K. and Tyler, T., 2008. Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: the mediating role ofemotions. European journal of social psychology, 38 (4), 652–668.

Murphya, K. and Barkwortha, J., 2014. Victim willingness to report crime to police: doesprocedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims & offenders: an international journal ofevidence-based research, policy, and practice, 9 (2), 178–204.

Myhill, A. and Quinton, P., 2010. Confidence, neighbourhood policing, and contact: drawingtogether the evidence. Policing, 4 (3), 273–281.

Prasetyo, E., et al., 2005. The role of the police in socio-political conflicts in Indonesia. Yogyakarta:Pusham UII, The Asia Foundation.

Pruitt, D. and Rubin, J.Z., 1986. Social conflict: escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Rahmawati, A. and Azca, N., 2006. Police reform from below: examples from Indonesia’stransition to democracy. Democracy, conflict and human security, 2, 53–67.

Reiner, R., 2000. The politics of policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Reisig, M.D. and Chandek, M.S., 2001. The effects of expectancy disconfirmation on outcome

satisfaction in police-citizen encounters. Policing: an international journal of police strategiesand management, 24 (1), 88–99.

Reisig, M.D. and Lloyd, C., 2009. Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fightcrime: results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police quarterly, 21, 42–62.

Reisig, M.D., Tankebe, J., and Mesko, G., 2013. Compliance with the law in Slovenia: the role ofprocedural justice and police legitimacy. European journal on criminal policy and research, 20,259–276.

Rosenbaum, D.P., et al., 2005. Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicariousexperience. Police quarterly, 8 (3), 343–365.

Saekoo, A., 2011. Examining the effect of trust, procedural justice, perceived organizationalsupport, commitment, and job satisfaction in royal Thai police: the empirical investigation insocial exchange perspective. Journal of academy of business and economics, 11 (3), 229–237.

Sargeant, E., Murphy, T., and Cherney, A., 2013. Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police:testing the dominance of the process-based model. European journal of criminology, 1–25.Available from: http://euc.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/08/1477370813511386 [Accessed3 January 2014].

Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., and Cherney, A., 2014. Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: testingthe dominance of the process-based model. European journal of criminology, 11 (4), 500–524.

Schukhofer, S., Tyler, T.R., and Huq, A., 2011. American policing at a crossroads: unsustainablepolicies and procedural justice alternative. Journal of criminal law and criminology, 101, 335–375.

Sengupta, A., 2010. Concept, category and claim: insights on caste and ethnicity from the police inIndia. New racial missions of policing: international perspectives on evolving law-enforcementpolitics, 33 (4), 717–736.

Skogan, W. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing and society,16 (2), 99–126.

Stasch, R., 2001. Giving up homicide: korowai experience of witches and police (West Papua).Oceania, 72 (1), 33–52.

Sun, I., Hu, R., and Wu, Y., 2012. Social capital, political participation, and trust in the police inurban China. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 45 (1), 87–105.

Sun, I.Y., Wu, Y., and Hu, R., 2013. Public assessments of the police in rural and urban China: atheoretical extension and empirical investigation. British journal of criminology, 53 (4), 643–664.

Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T., 2003a. Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and theimportance of procedural justice: the police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moralvalues. Social psychology quarterly, 66 (2), 153–165.

Policing and Society 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T.R., 2003b. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping publicsupport for policing. Law and society review, 37 (3), 513–548.

Tankebe, J., 2009a. Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter?Criminology, 47 (4), 1265–1293.

Tankebe, J., 2009b. Self-help, policing, and procedural justice: Ghanaian vigilantism and the rule oflaw. Law & society review, 43 (2), 245–270.

Tankebe, J., 2013. Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of policelegitimacy. Criminology, 51 (1), 103–135.

Telle, K., 2009. Swearing innocence: performing justice and ‘reconciliation’ in post-new orderLombok. In: B. Brauchler, ed. Reconciling Indonesia. New York: Routledge, 57–76.

Tyler, T.R., 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Tyler, T.R., 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In: M. Tonry, ed.

Crime and justice – a review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 431–505.Tyler, T.R., 2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American academy of political and

social science, 57, 375–400.Tyler, T.R., 2005. Policing in black and white: ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in

the police. Police quarterly, 8 (3), 322–342.Tyler, T.R., 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual review of

psychology, 57 (1), 375–400.Tyler, T.R., 2007. Psychology and the design of legal institutions. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Tyler, T., 2008. Psychology and institutional design. Review of law and economics, 4 (3), 801–887.Tyler, T.R., 2011a. Trust and legitimacy: policing in the USA and Europe. European journal of

criminology, 8 (4), 254–266.Tyler, T.R., 2011b. Why people cooperate: the role of social motivations. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S., 2000. Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and

behavioural engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S., 2003. Procedural justice, society identity, and cooperative behaviour.

Personality and social psychology review, 7, 349–361.Tyler, T.R. and Fagan, J., 2008. Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight

crime in their communities? Ohio state journal of criminal law, 6, 231–275.Tyler, T.R. and Huo, Y.J., 2002. Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police

and courts. New York: Russle Sage Foundation.Tyler, T.R. and Jackson, J., 2013. Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice

public law working paper no. 264. New Haven: Yale Law School.Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E., 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In: M. Zanna, ed.

Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 115–191.Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A., 2001. Procedural justice. In: J. Sanders and V.L. Hamilton, eds.

Handbook of justice research in law. New York: Plenum, 65–92.Tyler, T.R., Schulhofer, S. and Huq, A.Z., 2010. Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter

terrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law and society review, 44 (2), 365–402.van Maanen, J., 2011. Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.Villaveces-Izquierdo, S., 2010. Building internal and external constituencies for police reform: an

Indonesian case study. International journal of police science & management, 12 (2), 183–194.Waddington, P.A.J., 1999. Policing citizens: authority and rights. London: University College

London Press.Waddington, P.A.J., 2003. Policing public order and political contention. In: T. Newburn, ed.

Handbook of policing. Cullompton: Willan, 394–421.Weber, M., 1978. The types of legitimate dominion. In: G. Roth and C. Wittich, eds. Economy and

society. Berkeley: University of California.Weitzer, R. and Tuch, S.A., 2006. Race and policing in America: conflict and reform. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Westmarland, L., 2001. Gender and policing. Cullompton: Willan.Wu, Y. and Sun, I., 2009. Citizen trust in police: the case of China. Police quarterly, 12 (2),

170–191.

22 S.G. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

46 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014