PROTESTS at the inadequacy of South Africa’s stand against crime have become so generalised that they are no longer heard – they are reduced to the drone of the traffic in the street outside. But, at the risk of merely adding to a generalised clamour, some recent events – the theft of an 800kg automatic teller machine from police headquarters, the hijacking of a judge and the armed robbery of 50 tourists at a youth hostel – demand further comment.
It is a truism to say of our crime epidemic that it is the product of social factors, such as poverty and apartheid. But the corollary, that society must wait for the resolution of those problems before it can deal with crime, is unacceptable, however high-minded.
Steps are being taken, we are told. This week, to a fanfare of headlines Sydney Mufamadi, the Minister of Safety and Security, announced that police officers, including Commissioner George Fivaz, would be required to sign “due performance” contracts. Fivaz enthusiastically followed up with the announcement that action would be taken against officers who failed to perform “up to the required standards”.
The logic of this devolution of responsibility is clear … some poor storesman is going to be blamed for everything.
Where due performance is concerned what is to be demanded immediately of Mufamadi is an end to the ridiculous, long-standing moratorium on police recruitment.
The argument is that the South African Police Service (SAPS) has sufficient staff overall and all that is needed is a more efficient deployment of manpower.
Even if this were true, the failure to redeploy efficiently is manifest and the country can no longer wait on SAPS managers to find the missing formula. The apparent success of Operation Urban Strike late last year in significantly reducing the levels of crime in Johannesburg by importing about 1 000 police from other areas of the country is a pointer which cannot be ignored.
On December 12 a petition signed by 20 000 citizens appealing for an end to the moratorium was delivered to Mufamadi. To date he has not responded, which is symptomatic of the apparent paralysis of government on the policing front and provides another pointer – to the need for a shake-up in political responsibility for the police.
There were, at one stage, high hopes that the Business Against Crime initiative would produce a lobby group capable of pressuring the government into more effective action on the law and order front. But, while it would have been helpful to the force, particularly with regard to the supply of technology and expertise, indications are that it has been co-opted by the political establishment and its critical voice is no longer heard.
Law and order tends to be regarded as the territory of conservatives, of the “hang-them-high brigade”. But in South Africa the crime wave needs to be seen as being of major concern to liberals, because a popular backlash poses a major threat to the values which they hold dear.
It is questionable, for example, how long the government can hold its line on the abolition of capital punishment if the present state of anarchy on the streets continues for long. There is already a degree of justification for a re-think on some rights guaranteed in the Constitution – notably with regard to the weaknesses of the bail system, founded in the presumption of innocence, which has seen several murderers allowed out of custody to kill again. Some might even argue that it is time to consider a wholesale suspension of civil liberties by the declaration of a State of Emergency to fight what is, unquestionably, an emergency.
The champion of liberal ideals in Parliament is the Democratic Party, which is currently agonising over President Nelson Mandela’s invitation to join the government in some unspecified role. We nurse serious reservations about its accepting the offer, the dangers of co-option being only too obvious.
But if it were to decide that the national interest eclipsed such considerations we would suggest that it volunteers to take over Mufamadi’s portfolio. To some in the DP it might appear to be a poisoned cup, but that perception will at least counter the charge that self-interest motivates its acceptance of the president’s invitation.
Some in the African National Congress may oppose such an appointment on the grounds that, should the DP have some success in making inroads against crime, it will have handed a triumph to a political opponent. But such a boost to the fortunes of a tiny party would be a small price for the ANC to pay to rid itself of a grievous burden on its own political fortunes. And if the DP should fail the ANC would have every excuse for trumpeting: “We told you so …”