Appointing an independent observer to watch a police department investigate itself is the political equivalent of putting a rearview mirror on a sinking ship. It looks like utility. It feels like accountability. In reality, it changes absolutely nothing about the underlying machinery.
When the news broke that an independent observer was named to monitor the Montreal police internal investigation into allegations of systemic racism, the collective sigh of relief from the establishment was audible. The media played its usual part, framing the appointment as a crucial victory for transparency.
It is not a victory. It is a calculated distraction.
The lazy consensus dictates that if we just place a credible, third-party bureaucrat in the room, the inherent bias of a police force investigating its own officers will magically evaporate. This logic is fundamentally flawed. An observer has no teeth, no structural authority, and no capacity to alter the systemic incentives that govern police behavior.
We are asking the wrong questions about police accountability because we are trapped in a cycle of performative oversight.
The Illusion of the Watchman
The fundamental misunderstanding of independent oversight lies in the distinction between observation and enforcement. An observer is a historian with a front-row seat. They document the process, write a report three months after the public interest has died down, and offer recommendations that sit on a shelf.
I have watched public institutions deploy this exact playbook for two decades. When a crisis hits, you do not fix the problem; you manage the optics. You appoint a highly respected figure—a retired judge, a human rights lawyer, a distinguished academic—to absorb the public anger. The presence of the observer neutralizes criticism in the short term. If you question the investigation, the department simply replies, "We have an independent observer monitoring the process."
Consider what an observer actually does during an internal racial profiling or bias investigation. They review files that have already been compiled by internal affairs. They attend interviews conducted by police investigators. They check boxes to ensure standard operating procedures were followed.
What they cannot do is compel testimony, issue binding directives, or rewrite the collective bargaining agreements that shield problematic officers from actual consequences. They are monitoring a rigged game and certifying that the dealer shuffled the cards correctly.
Why Internal Investigations Can Never Be Fixed
The premise that a police department can objectively investigate its own culture of discrimination is a structural absurdity. It misunderstands the nature of institutional tribalism.
Police work relies on a fierce, insular culture of mutual dependency. Officers depend on their peers for survival in high-stress environments. That bond creates an unwritten code of silence that no external observer can penetrate. When internal affairs investigators look into their colleagues, they are operating within that same cultural ecosystem.
[Allegation of Bias] ──> [Internal Affairs Reviews Peer Actions] ──> [Observer Watches Review] ──> [No Systemic Change]
The data on internal police discipline bears this out globally. Study after study shows that internal affairs divisions sustain a fraction of a percent of civilian complaints regarding bias or excessive force compared to independent civilian tribunals with investigative powers.
When we insert an observer into this mix, we are trying to fix a corrupt output by tweaking the input slightly. The system is operating exactly as it was designed to: it protects the institution first and the public second.
Dismantling the PAA Fallacies
The public discourse surrounding these appointments usually throws up the same predictable questions. The answers provided by city officials are almost always sanitised nonsense.
Does an independent observer guarantee a fair investigation?
Absolutely not. Fairness requires neutrality, and the entity gathering the evidence—the police department—is not neutral. The observer only guarantees that the unfair process follows legal protocols. If the initial evidence collection is compromised by implicit bias or a lack of institutional will, the observer is simply watching a flawless execution of a broken process.
Why can't civilians just trust the oversight process?
Because the oversight process is intentionally decoupled from punitive outcomes. Trust is earned through consequences, not reports. When a community sees repeated instances of documented profiling result in paid administrative leave or mandatory "sensitivity training," trust becomes an irrational position to hold.
What is the alternative to internal investigations?
Complete divestment of investigative authority from the police department in question. True accountability requires a permanent, independent civilian body with full subpoena powers, its own investigative staff, and the unilateral authority to fire officers. Anything less is theater.
The True Cost of Performance Oversight
The danger of the Montreal model—and similar models deployed across North America—is not just that it fails to work. The danger is that it actively pushes back real reform.
Every time a city hall appoints a special monitor or an independent observer, they buy themselves twelve to eighteen months of peace. The media cycle moves on. The protests dissipate. The political pressure cooker loses its steam. By the time the observer releases a report confirming that systemic issues do exist, the urgency has evaporated, and the budget for the police department has increased.
Imagine a scenario where a financial institution is caught laundering money, and the government's response is to hire an outside accountant to sit in the bank's internal compliance meetings for a month, without the power to audit or fine them. The market would laugh that off as a farce. Yet, when the currency is human rights and systemic discrimination, we accept this exact arrangement as progress.
We must stop treating police accountability as a public relations problem that can be solved with better optics. The solution is not more eyes on a broken machine. The solution is dismantling the machine entirely and building an independent mechanism of public safety accountability that does not owe its allegiance to the badge.
Until we stop settling for observers, we will continue to get exactly what we are watching: a system that protects its own at the expense of everyone else.
