{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019754768392370572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.707762557077626, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evolution of Policing and Security: What it Means for Diverse Security Sectors

Police, gendarme, and security forces have co-evolved with states since the origin of the Westphalian system. Their governance structures and functions therefore reflect the history of each polity we might examine. Some security organizations have also evolved transnational aspects, such as colonial police, INTERPOL cooperation and international peacekeeping and policing. This evolution reflects both dominant interests within states (Brodeur’s high policing) and those of communities at large (low policing). Both domestic and transnational aspects of governance and division of security functions are partially transferred when the international community attempts to reconstruct or reform the security sector of a post-conflict or weak state. Such target states are also affected by a global political economy, which includes informal and illegal sectors thriving on disorder. Diversity creates three specific problems for the security sector: identity-based economies linked to crime; identity-based conflicts linked to domestic and transnational violence; and identity-based tensions that manifest within security organizations, making it difficult to deal with the other two. The good news is that many countries have passed through these problems to develop stable and effective security sectors. I attempt to generalize about the elements of successful adaptation to diversity.