Terrorism threatens a society by instilling fear and helplessness in its citizens. It seeks to hold a society or government hostage by fear of destruction and harm.
When terrorist acts occur, people generally look for ways to cope with the acute stress and trauma. Terrorism evokes a fundamental fear of helplessness. The violent actions are random, unprovoked and intentional, and often are targeted at defenseless citizens. Trying to cope with the irrational information that is beyond normal comprehension can set off a chain of psychological events culminating in feelings of fear, helplessness, vulnerability and grief.
Xenophobia — fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners — can be heightened under a terrorist threat and can become a social and psychological danger. The fear generated by terrorism can be exacerbated by a population’s diversity if there is distrust between groups, categories and classification of citizens. It is important to recognize that diversity in a population can be an opportunity for unity and strength. There are members of our diverse society who have experienced past terrorist incidents. The knowledge and experience they have gained from surviving and coping with these incidents can make them a valuable resource on how to cope and how to offer assistance to others.
After a terrorist attack, many people are impacted. People who have experienced the trauma often fall into the following categories:
People who have experienced or witnessed a terrorist attack may go into a state of acute stress reaction. You may feel one or all of these symptoms:
If you are having trouble coping with the terrorist attacks, consider seeking help from a psychologist or other mental health professional. There are many ways to feel traumatized by terrorist incidents. Psychologists and other licensed mental health professionals are trained to help people cope and take positive steps toward managing their feelings and behaviors.
MoI officers and representatives of civil society participated in the process of identification of approaches came to a basic conclusion: before a vision and develop a strategy for long-term reform to be created it is necessarily a broad public discussion with representatives of NGOs, professional and trade union organizations to be conducted.
MoI 2030 – one point of view and one possible approach:
The one approach to reform of the Ministry of Interior if we are not thinking about structural change is to consider the reform as a desired effect on the staff, to identify necessary organizational change to ensure a high quality of service “security” and to ensure better and more efficient service to citizens. In this case, it is necessary to apply a tactical approach, which is based on a pre-identified problems, which need to be solved. If this approach to reform is selected, it is necessary the measures in 2030 to ensure the achievement of the following results:
To the citizens of Republic of Bulgaria:
Improved interaction between MI and institutions from other key sectors such as health facilities, social services, prosecution and court to establish a new approach and allow the application of the principle of “case management”. This approach will reduce the time limits for citizens and increase the effectiveness of the “security”.
To the employees:
To the system:
Ministry of Interior in 2030 – Another point of view and the second possible approach:
The second possible approach that was identified is strategic and it is connected with the union about the role and functions that MoI have to implement and is based on the assumption that the main function of the Ministry of Interior and the main objective of the Police department is to protect public order and internal Security. If starting from this understanding, it is necessary when talking about reform and the vision of the Ministry of Interior in 2030, to achieve the following results:
The main issue which united representatives of trade unions, professional organizations and NGOs in terms of public order and security, is that the “security” service provided to citizens, is not effective and does not meet their needs. The discussion about the parameters and expectations of what should the service be has not taken place – as citizens, and with trade unions and professional organizations. Reasons for the lack of discussion about MoI are many but the main ones are:
That is why the police system becomes more rigid, more encapsulated and sacrifice more cruel its employees. This is happening on a background of permanent reduction of the quality of “security” service and increased number of unsatisfied from the MoI’s work citizens to whom is said they are complaining are reasonless and exist only because they do not understand “the complex matter of security.”
Rigidity of the system is due to many reasons, some of which are: