Abstract
This minor dissertation interrogates the relationship between politics and policing in South Africa and examines the issue from a perspective of Knowledge Leadership (KL). It is a qualitative study by an indigenous outsider participant observer. The researcher is therefore mindful of subjectivity and always aware of ethical considerations. The participants are all professors at South African universities active in the broadly defined world of policing. The population was selected from a list of South African researchers active in this policing world. The list was constructed by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in consultation during 2016. These professors all have doctorates. They have on average 34.5 years of experience in academia and their average age is 67.1 years. The study finds that policing in South Africa is unduly and adversely influenced by politics through the actions of politicians. It is clear and reported so in the study, that this was also the case under colonial rule, as well as under Apartheid rule. This means that the current political dispensation in South Africa more than often glibly referred to as the “democratic era” (while it is more likely a “dominant party” era), acts exactly the same as the political dispensations, and therefore the regimes, found during the colonial and Apartheid eras. The South African Police Service (the SAPS) is a paramilitary organisation resembling a “force” in reality, and not a “service”, as its name and the foundation statutes dictate. The policing systems during the colonial and Apartheid eras were police forces, not police services. The SAPS is instrumental in keeping a regime in power. It protects powerful political figures against thorough investigation and prosecution for alleged crimes, just as the police forces during the colonial and Apartheid eras did. The SAPS is instrumental in the oppression of opponents to the dominant party state, just like we found under colonialism and Apartheid. The courts, civil society, academia v and the media (specifically investigative journalists) are closely watched. Many books and articles are published daily detailing corrupt and other criminal activities from within the political elite circle, yet solid SAPS action in partnership with the National Prosecution Authority is clearly missing in action. Also, while some judges, civil society actors, academics and critical journalists are subjected to the most horrible treatment that one can find, both in the public and private domains (resembling the “Stratcom” initiatives under Apartheid) in a constitutional democracy under the rule of law, none of these people are openly challenged in courts of law; and While the SAPS support criminality to carry on unchallenged among the political elite, some members of this policing institution are actively involved in the committing of crimes in their own right – as it was under colonialism and Apartheid. The study offers professional policing as the antithesis to this political domination of policing in South Africa. It explains professional policing not in terms of the traditional British view, that of “policing by consent” but as “accountable policing” within a “collective community responsibility”, as advanced by Shearing (as cited in Wood, 2014). According to this view, the state (for instance, to advance the point clearly, through the SAPS) should not be the owner of policing. Rather, the SAPS should be a partner in societal safety without the veto. In this respect, the problem-solving capabilities that we have within our communities on a local level are crucial. So is the multiplying effect supplied by private security as well as knowledge (based on solid, peer-reviewed research, of course) from outside of the SAPS?...
M.Phil. (Personal and Professional Leadership)