Politicians, not the police, must solve public dissatisfaction in South Africa
Using more forceful policing to address rising frustration with poor governance will only escalate public violence.
Published on 05 December 2014 in
ISS Today
By
There is something tragic about the approach by some in the South African government to the challenge of public dissatisfaction and community protest. Tragic, because it fails to recognise that protest action is not purely criminal or irrational, but about issues of real or perceived neglect and deprivation.
These issues are deeply rooted in high levels of unemployment, poverty, poor service delivery and the absence of adequate housing and infrastructure. To make matters worse, many of these problems can be directly linked to inefficiency and corruption at local government level. It is also tragic because there is a clear belief among some that ‘solving’ the ‘problem’ requires applying more force, which only adds to perceptions of an insensitive, uncaring and unresponsive government.
As a result, ongoing protest action increases indirect confrontation between government and affected communities. In response to protest action, and in particular to incidents of violence, politicians are predictably quick to point out that the right to demonstrate, as provided for by section 17 of the Constitution, is limited to ‘peaceful and unarmed’ action. In doing so, they fail to recognise that too often, peaceful protests are disallowed by local authorities or the police, and that ‘peaceful’ action typically receives no attention from government officials.
Applying more force only adds to perceptions of an uncaring and unresponsive government |
Communities have increasingly recognised that disruptive violence, such as blockading roads with burning tires and destroying public property, is often the only way to draw attention to their plight. Usually this happens only after official channels for registering complaints and requests for meetings have yielded little, if any, response.
Unfortunately, while protesting communities are trying to get their concerns taken seriously, the immediate attention they receive from the state is more likely to be police action aimed at ‘restoring order,’ and to arrest those deemed responsible for the destruction of property.
National Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS), Riah Phiyega, reiterated in Parliament on 3 September 2014 the police’s commitment to have the perpetrators of violent protest action ‘arrested and prosecuted’.
Of course she has very little choice, since section 205 of the Constitution obliges the SAPS to ‘maintain public order’ and ‘to uphold and enforce the law’. The police can do little else – they did not create the conditions at the root of public dissatisfaction and are not in any position to address these.
Incongruous as it may seem, relying on the police to quell community protests seems to be the only response available to those who have a political responsibility for improving governance. Following the first meeting of the National Executive Council (NEC) of the African National Congress (ANC) in 2013, Secretary General Gwede Mantashe, at a press conference, warned citizens that ‘by participating in violent protests you are actively destroying your right to protest’.
He added that the NEC had ‘directed the state to find ways and implementable means as a matter of urgency to deal with the twin phenomenon of violent strikes and violent community protests’.
 Disruptive violence is often the only way to draw attention to their plight |
The NEC’s stated position is perplexing and in contrast with the views expressed in the National Development Plan 2030 (NDP), approved by cabinet in September 2012. The NDP makes it clear that ‘service-delivery protests stem from citizens' frustration that the state is not responsive to their grievances.’ So, while violent public protests are increasing, our political leaders appear to be paying only lip service to the clear understanding of the problem in the NDP.
Their statements illustrate either a deliberate denial or a lack of understanding of the NDP analysis, or an inability to constructively engage with the causes of the problem rather than resorting to the use of force.
In a press release by Municipal IQ in September 2014, it was reported that there were 134 ‘major’ service delivery protests in the first eight months of 2014. Almost four out of five of these were violent, and because the underlying reasons are not addressed, they are likely to continue at the current high rate for the rest of this year and beyond.
According to the SAPS Annual Report for 2012/13, the police had to respond to a total of 13 575 ‘crowd-related’ incidents, 1 907 (14%) of which were violent or ‘unrest related’ and 11 668 (86%) peaceful. This works out to an average of 32 ‘peaceful’ and five ‘unrest’ incidents daily. However, while peaceful incidents showed an increase of just over 47% when compared to 2009/10 (7 913 incidents), incidents involving violence increased almost twice as fast (92%) from 994 in 2009/10.
Clearly, policing community protests, demonstrations and public gatherings burden police resources. As a result, Phiyega recently told Parliament that the police wanted a massive increase in their public order capability. Over the next four years, the police requested an additional R3,3 billion to increase the number of public order police units from 27 to 50, and the number of reserve units from one to four. This would increase the number of trained public order policing officers from 4 721 to 9 521 with additional armoured vehicles, non-lethal weapons and other equipment.
| The NDP makes it clear that service-delivery protests stem from citizens' frustration |
Phiyega argued that ‘the country is experiencing a surge in violent incidents, which require urgent additional interventions from the South African Police Service’ and that ‘this upsurge will not decline in the foreseeable future’.
These views from the head of the police and the political leadership suggest that there will be increasing reliance on the police to deal with a phenomenon that is primarily social and political in nature.
The recent initiative by the Gauteng Provincial Government to establish a 'Service Delivery War Room' to improve government’s responsiveness to communities, is a rare example of an initiative being developed to prevent protests from happening before the need for the police arises. Perhaps this is the type of initiative that could be rolled out with the kind of money being requested by the police to reduce the factors that cause public dissatisfaction in the first place.
The police cannot avoid responsibility for the maintenance of public order, but our political leaders are making a potentially fatal mistake if they think that additional or more forceful policing is the answer to growing instances of community protest. Rather, our public representatives should be focusing on tackling public sector corruption and inadequate government responses to community dissatisfaction, which lie at the heart of many protests and violence.
Johan Burger, Senior Researcher, Governance, Crime and Justice Division, ISS Pretoria
