abusive police
Ted Leggett
There has been much speculation about why South African Police Service (SAPS) officers would abuse shackled and wounded citizens in front of BBC cameras, in footage they must have known would be broadcast all over the world.
But criminal investigators often come across similar cases, where the perpetrators apparently go out of their way to assure they will be apprehended. Often, these perpetrators are “youth at risk”, and their behaviour is interpreted as a cry for help.
Like teenagers who act in outrageous and self-destructive ways in order to be reassured of parental concern, the SAPS officers involved in the scandal may not have been consciously sending out a message. But they have, in a real sense, martyred themselves for the sake of their fellow officers. They have sacrificed their careers in order to say to a global audience: this is what we are – now, what are you going to do about it?
Their acts are, of course, out of line, and it is right that they be disciplined. Part of what they are demanding by their actions is more discipline. They need to be reassured that someone is in charge of the chaos they face every day.
Police officers tend join the service because they believe in discipline, but they need to feel there is order among their own ranks before they can be expected to administer it to the public.
Indeed, they have received more support from the public than they have from within the SAPS. The groundswell of approval for these acts of “informal justice” is perhaps the most important aspect of the case. Discipline, training and even counselling can be given to traumatised SAPS officers, but what does the government intend to do for a public willing to toss out criminal procedure in favour of Judge Dredd-style dispute resolution?
The state has been given notice that a substantial portion of the electorate is willing to take a giant step back in the evolution of democracy in order to deal with more basic issues of civil order. South Africa is facing a genuine structural crisis, as First World ideals and Third World reality clash on the streets.
Thus far we have been successful in keeping the anarchy simmering at levels just below low-intensity warfare, at least in most urban areas. But a fairly stable body count of 25 000 murders a year is clearly not a sustainable situation.
What is not needed at this point is a lot of chest-beating and finger-pointing. If these officers are treated as an anomalous embarrassment and quietly made to disappear, then both the police and their victims will have suffered in vain. What is needed is a radical reassessment of the way we are dealing with this problem and the measures we are willing to take to recapture public confidence in the state’s ability to keep citizens safe.
Can we go ahead with development before there is peace? Can we establish a basis for peace without some substantial development? The police currently claim less than 10% of the national budget. Is this allotment in line with the importance of crime as a national issue? Should other spending be tailored more toward projects that will enhance social stability?
These are the kind of basic questions the BBC incident brings to the fore. We are not just confronting a matter of police discipline. We are facing a crisis in national priorities.
Ted Leggett is a researcher in the Centre for Social and Development Studies at the University of Natal