The recent appointment of Bheki Cele as police commissioner has once again brought the persistently high levels of crime to the fore. Despite some substantial improvements, SAPS are struggling to get a handle on the crime situation. As has become par for the course, Cele has publicly adopted an aggressive approach to crime including his controversial position that police officers require more protection and leeway to deal with armed criminals.
This seems to reflect the general position of the ruling party, as reflected in statements by the police minister, his deputy and the president himself on numerous occasions prior to the recent elections. Though this gung-ho approach might be popular with large segments of the police and gain short-term political advantage for the ruling party, we have to ask our police bosses some crucial questions. The most obvious one: has the government or police conducted any serious study that shows the persistence of crime to be related to a “lack of toughness on criminals” or the lack of authority on the part of the police? The second logical question would be to look at whether such a supposed “toughness on crime” would actually make a substantial dent in the occurrence of serious crime in South Africa.
Though some conservative commentators promote the imprisonment of large numbers of people, this approach has not been successful in places like the US, where the prison population has increased exponentially over the past 20 years. It is a matter of serious concern that the adoption of the new “toughness regime” is not based on a well-considered analysis of the shortcomings in our anti-crime approach but on an attitude that will perpetuate a macho and cavalier tendency among many police officers.
The commissioner and his political bosses are aware that the SAPS continue to spend millions of taxpayer rands on compensation payouts resulting from police negligence and abuse. Creating an enabling environment where police officers feel protected and indeed encouraged in the use of violence is no way to improve the critical relationship between the police and communities, nor to developing a professionalised police service. This is particularly worrying when the commissioner’s political bosses are seen to be competing with him to see who “the toughest cop of them all” is.
The responsibility of oversight entrusted to the minister can only function properly if he is able to moderate the (sometimes) understandably tough language of a police commissioner, instead of being swept away by the toughness tide as well. Curiously the post-apartheid discourse on fighting crime in South Africa has become more conservative over the years and the idealism of a progressive crime-prevention strategy seems to be lost as more radical measures are sought by politicians and police alike. Maybe we need a more considered approach that will compel the police to effectively perform their functions within the human-rights constitutional framework we now have, instead of backsliding into the adoption of the outdated and reactionary discourse of kragdadigheid.
Thank you for articulating the problem so well, David. In principal, I am on board with the idea of a police force that is empowered to act. However, on each occasion that I’ve needed police assistance (burglary, mugging, attempted hi-jack), the limiting factor has never been one of “rules of engagement” with the bad guys. By the time the patrol car arrives, the trail has long since gone cold, the bad guys had time to stop off for burgers’n'chips on the way home.
Do we really need a Dirty Harry approach? We should be able to trust and respect our police force – fear is not a suitable substitute. Ultimately, the question of when to use force, and how much is acceptable, need only be asked once we have a police force that can quickly, consistently, and efficiently respond to an emergency call.
It’s time we realise that crime is a cultural issue and that a total mental transformation is needed to turn the tide.
In SA Crime is too acceptable, there’s too much too gain too easy and we’ve ceded to the notion that playing by the rules means playing to loose. Crime will only decline when even the deviant mind acknowledges in his minds eye that crime does not pay. To see the likes of Shabir Shaik, Jackie Selebi, Glenn Agliotti and the rest of these scumbags easing around in the plush seats of a luxurious German car and not contemplating their sins in the confined space of a prison cell, does little to communicate this. What it does say is that if you’re clever you won’t get caught and if you do get caught they’ll just let you again.
What’s needed is a police force that is professional, one that engages within communities and above all one that is trusted. Civilians need to see the gain in stopping and reporting crime. We need to be safe in the knowledge that we will be protected and the criminal prosecuted, not the criminal protected and our families persecuted. Policing with a gung-ho mentality will lead to mistakes, which will cost lives and create an establishment that is feared and not respected. Civilians will not engage with police they fear or mistrust, they will avoid them and the criminal will win.
This debate is a strawman.
@ Roland,
you make a very important point. There is very little the police can do to stop a crime from happening or catch the suspects in the act or shortly after. The real issues, with regard to policing, is the SAPS ability to investigate crime and ensure that the chain of evidence is solid enough to ensure convictions.
We don’t need more police officers in SA, we need officers who can take statements, who can collect evidence and ensure that the criminal justice system works. As an example, if you take the number of reported crimes in SA and divide that number by the number of opperational police officers, we find that each officer only has to deal with 2 reported crimes per week. Obviously this will differ depending on area, time of day, day of the week and time of the month. But even on the busiest days most officers will only have to deal with 2 or 3 incidents during an 8 hour shift. How they deal with those incidents is the problem and I fear more force will create a whole new set of problems.
That police cannot prevent crime, anywhere, and the SAPS and the minister know it. Economic stability, equality and social justice prevent crime, people with guns don’t…unless we are willing to go the apartheid route…and we all know how that worked out.
David, this is a vexing question. As a female citizen, I do feel safe when I see visible policing and frankly, against my own logic, feel more secure by the message of a tougher stance (not the shoot to kill one though).
Yet I know, as a student of conflict and harms, that a jackboot approach is going to escalate societal violence in the longterm. Arguably the kragdadigheid of the past, and the response to it is part of what constitutes our context today.
The compromise I have come to between my brain and my own vulnerability is that I sincerely hope the tough stance is a tactic while the need for psychological messaging of who is in charge is high; and that the longterm strategy is to combine social justice goals with criminal justice goals.
Classic catch 22 – we simply cannot continue to live in debilitating fear; nor can SA afford the strongarm tactics of the past. What is needed for longterm success is a way to rally all citizens around a strategy to (i) truly understand the criminogenic effect of ascribed inequality (inherited from the past and presently escalating) and (ii) convince them to contribute to the reduction of nested inequalities through personal behaviour and by keeping the state accountable.
Not everyone wants to joint a neighbourhood watch or a safety forum, but we can all contribute to equality – the greatest prevention method of all.
I would hate to be a policman! All the hard work that goes into capturing the bad guys is lost because of a frot legal system that protects the ‘rights’ of criminals more than it does the rights of the good guys. Criminals are let out on bail, the NPA are useless and the same policem who caught the bad guys the first, or second or third time. have to risk their lives once more just to see the caputured criminals, let out on bail, again, or their files are lost, or they are let off for Political reasons.
When mandela turned 80 they released 8,000 criminals – nothing was done for the good guys except that we now had 8,000 more crooks out there waiting to pounce.
If we don’t have competant people in the NPA and the laws remain in favour of crime, then crime does pay and more and more people will participate as it is much easier than working!!
Hi Sarah,
I understand the vulnerability that all South African women, and most men I would dare say too, feel about the high levels and violent nature of crime, but see no empirical evidence that a ‘tough approach’ will change any of that. To actually think that criminals in SA are intimidated by the police is only living off a false sense of illusion. Successive ministers of police have threatened criminals with a tough approach and this has come to very little. I just think that maybe its time that we give a more intelligent approach a chance to succeed. this would mean giving an intelligent policing approach a sustained run or opportunity, and not merely trying it as a short term tactic.
Sadly I don’t think our politicians and police leadership sees the so-called ‘tough on crime’ approach as a short term tactic…and even if they did, history is awash with short term ‘emergency’ measures becoming institutionalised, something that we can not afford and should not even try.
Like most of concerned citizens, I am concerned about the levels of crime too. Surely the answer lies in much better prepared cases being brought before the courts, and then people actually being convicted? Add to that much harsher penalties for the crime committed… Criminals have an obvious disdain for the law, and are therefore virtually encouraged to go forth and commit mayhem, knowing that firstly they may not get caught, and then even if they do, there’s a good chance of not even seeing the inside of a prison cell! The other really worrying thing is a having a ‘leader’ who runs around signing about machine guns, to deal with. It has a definite ring of anarchy to it if you ask me, and the crooks have happily obliged and caused mayhem… Chickens are coming home to roost.. The common man is getting more and more irate at the lack of delivery on the part of govt, which also is cause for major concern.. what are the ‘powers’ doing to rectify the situation? It feels like we’re sitting on a powder keg, thats ready to explode..
David, in the absence of details on this ‘intelligent policing approach’ I’m afraid logic is not going to win over actual vulnerability.
If however your approach does not includes a way to deal with vulnerability in the immediate and short term, evidence shows that it will not see the light of day. I’m trying to be realistic here because my default inclination is to agree with you – because it makes sense … and in reality, I am typing this note from the safety of a target hardened space – like everyone else who can afford burglar bars and safety doors. Our reality betrays our most cherished values. How are we going to incorporate that and still reach for those noble goals, which we must.
An intelligent approach has two basic components: Firstly, real efforts at addressing the social causes of crime. This requires a serious ideological shift on the part of government on issues such as sustainable job creation, reconfiguring the architecture of our townships to become safer physical spaces and maximising the involvement of communities in crime fighting, and here I am not refering to rubber-stamping forums meant to legitimise police behaviour.
The second basis is simply to conduct more intelligent policing: recruit and retain the sharpest minds into the police, learn from our own and other successful practices of combating crime ( we are averse to learning not only from our failures but our own successes too) and deploy more intelligent systems of operation and communication in the police. The police still functions as an archaic and ancient institution where technology is regarded as an oddity reserved for nerds.
No one should clim this will be easy, but n my mind its the only approach that will work. We’ve tried the other approach over the past 15 years and I am yet to find anyone who can present a convincing argument of its success.
We can simply no longer allow our national policy to be driven by emotion, particularly one as pervasive as fear. I am not arguing for govt to ignore people’s fears and concerns, but if all our policies were based on fear we would be in even more trouble than we are already!
In Botswana our recently appointed president, Ian Khama has taken a tougher stance against crime. He has introduced a new ministry of intellegence and security with a budget greater than education. Since his appointment no less than 15 people have been killed by this ministry, in conjunction with the police. The net effect has been to alienate the people from the police and state security forces. Fear has replaced respect and it is not just criminals who feel this way. Having an ex-military man as our president has proven to be a very bad mistake.
There is a distintion between fear and actual vulnerability. Idealists are as guilty as those who support a warmaking approach in that idealists ignore the short term and jackboot types ignore the longterm.
There must surely be a middle road. Sometimes the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth. Does the will exist on both sides to acknowledge these truths?