Following criticisms that the South African Police Service (SAPS) was brutal, the National Commissioner of the SAPS, Bheki Cele, was reported in the media as saying on May 10, 2011 that ‘police officials are only a reflection of the [violent] society from which they [the police] come’. General Cele is therefore arguing that the SAPS is simply a mirror image of our extremely violent society and therefore police officials cannot be expected to be anything else than “rough”, “heavy handed” and, at times, “violent”. Is it a fair statement that the police can be expected to be violent because they are drawn from a violent society?

We certainly are a society exposed to high levels of violent crime, both as perpetrators and as victims. For example South Africa has a murder rate of 34 murders per 100 000 people which is seven times higher than the international average. Antony Altbeker in his book ‘A country at war with itself: South Africa’s crisis of crime (2007), puts it rather bluntly that of various societies considered to be violent ‘only a handful has levels of violence that even approach ours’.

While there is little argument that we are a society that experiences high levels of violence, there is disagreement that the police are generally brutal. General Cele has stated that cases of police brutality are isolated incidents. However, recent statistics released by the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) show the extent of the problem facing the SAPS. At a press conference on June 2, 2011 the ICD Executive Director Francois Beukman said that they are currently investigating an estimated 6 000 cases against members of the police. According to the ICD’s Annual Report for 2009/10 the number of criminal complaints against the police increased by 285% since the ICD was established in 1997.

Whether there is a link between a violent society being saddled with a violent police force is partly dealt with by the book ‘The police we deserve’, edited by Alderson and Stead and published in 1973 in Britain. This book argues inter alia, that, “the police, like laws, reflect the nature of the society which they serve. Corrupt societies deserve, and get, corrupt police. Totalitarian societies acquire omnipotent police. Violent societies get violent police. Tolerant societies get tolerant police. Wise societies bridle police powers”

This reasoning may appear logical but it may be misleading. While it speaks of a policing system dependent on the goodwill, support and understanding of the society that it serves, such a model does not simply occur because a society becomes lawful on its own accord. This happens over time and partly because of the political and policing systems that are dominated largely by people who lead the way by both upholding and enforcing the law. The British policing doctrine emerged over centuries until it arrived at a point where it was recognised that the best model was one where the police were expected to be independent of the ruling party and primarily act as servants of the people. This was a consequence of a societal recognition that political power would change hands and that the civil service should remain focused on serving the people no matter who was in power.

In South Africa our police doctrine emerged during colonialism whereby the police were created as a military-styled oppressive force. This doctrine continued during apartheid when the police were used by the then ruling National Party to enforce an ideology that discriminated against most of the population on grounds of race.

In 1994, with the advent of democracy, the objective of police ‘transformation’ was to emulate the British model of a police ‘service’ ‘dependent on the goodwill, support and understanding’ of the South African ‘society’. A South African constitutional democracy was supposed to be one where basic human rights would be paramount and the police would become servants of the people. The creation of a new SAPS based on a ‘community policing’ philosophy was aimed at breaking the cycle of violent interaction between police and society.

Sadly, looking back at sixteen years of democratisation of both our police and our society, it appears that in spite of the many changes, very little of what was envisaged has been achieved. While on paper our police are governed by the Constitution and the ‘rule of law’, in reality they are still highly politicised. Since 2000 the Head of the SAPS has been a political party appointee and not a professional police officer. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence of police involvement in the internal conflicts of the ruling party and a clear reluctance to act against powerful politicians.

Of particular concern is that at this point in time, we seem to be in danger of returning to a police public relationship increasingly informed by violent interaction. This turnaboutbecame visible after the 1999 election, when the developmental approach to crime prevention was abandoned in favour of the rhetoric of ‘war on crime’. This change in political priority of the South African government largely occurred due to the persistent increase in crime that took place until 2003. In practical terms, social crime prevention was perceived by politicians as a “soft” approach which had to compete for resources and support with the more policing orientated “crime fighting” approach.

As a result of this policy shift, the government has lost sight of the fact that it is impossible for the police alone to influence the factors that cause crime in any society (see for example the ‘impossible mandate’ by Burger, ‘Strategic perspectives on crime and policing in South Africa’, 2007).

General Cele will do well to revisit the police role in societal interventions, whether as law enforcement officials, crowd control managers or more generally as security and service providers. It must be clear that the police are expected to be role-models and not simply reflect society. No matter where they come from, only those individuals who meet the high standards required of professional police officials should be employed by the SAPS. This can be achieved if the SAPS strictly enforce appropriate recruitment criteria and only hire those who pass the rigorous training requirements to be a police official. The SAPS must never be seen simply as an employment agency but rather as a professional organisation that demands a high standard of behavior and skill from its members. Police professionalism is a consequence of a clear vision and organisational doctrine implemented by exemplary leadership and highly experienced and accountable managers.

Once our police leadership realise the importance of professionalism and the need for an ethos of voluntary obedience to the law by the police themselves, we can begin to expect that from the public. This would also negate the temptation to blame a ‘violent society’ for police brutality and, to the contrary, truly give the South African people a police agency they deserve, not one they fear and disrespect.

Written by Johan Burger & Chris Botha, Senior Researcher & Police Training Consultant, Criminal Justice programme, ISS Pretoria Office