Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights…

 

 

So here we have it, at last. It has been a while coming, but come it has.

 

Not that it has been unexpected. It was bound to happen eventually, in one way or another.

 

Many very astute and able writers have been trying – for some considerable time – to show how South Africa has been slowly descending into the abyss. More recently Spearpoint has (with far less ability and effectiveness) added his own voice to the warnings that have been increasingly thronging the various media available to us in this country.

 

I fear that it will all be to no avail.

 

The pessimism, even despair, which has silently pervaded South African society over the last decade or so, is now gaining increasing momentum even amongst those who celebrated the most after the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Now we begin to see the true colours of our Rainbow Nation; colours that were once purposefully and skillfully hidden behind shimmering nebulae of rhetoric and political razzle-dazzle are now being glimpsed more often as the perceived need for global political respectability is, more and more, discarded as the ANC and its puppet masters gain in confidence and arrogance.

 

Today, the legislation to disband the elite crime-fighting unit known as the Scorpions has been tabled in Parliament.

 

Modeled broadly on the FBI, the Scorpions have proven to be a formidable and largely untouchable crime-fighting force that has shown little or no favour and has appeared to be indefatigable in the pursuit of those who would place themselves above the law. They have been a very necessary foil to the poorly performing South African Police Service.

 

Why the ANC has bothered to involve Parliament escapes me. South Africa is a dictatorship of the elected majority party (the ANC), with absolutely no prospect of any realistic challenge to the current status quo being mounted through the ballot box anytime in the next couple of generations.

 

The ANC might as well come clean and rule by decree. It would save them and the rest of the world time, effort and embarrassment over the increasingly amateurish attempts to legitimise their fumbling realisations of their ambitions.

 

The signs have around for a long time.

 

• The selection of a party leader – soon to be the country’s President – who is awaiting trial on corruption and related charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and public protection by the current President of the country – with the tacit approval of the ANC – of the national Police Commissioner who faces serious charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and unashamed protection of numerous public officials and office holders who have either admitted or have been convicted of innumerable offences ranging from drunk driving through fraud, embezzlement and worse.
• The blasé and indifferent approach to, and acceptance of, crime levels unparalleled outside of war zones such as Iraq. (An example – it is generally accepted that a rape occurs in South Africa every 23 seconds. Do the math – 1.4 million rapes per annum in a population estimated at around 45-50 million people).
• The awesome drift from reality embodied in the continuing and, until very recently, unquestioning support of rogue and repressive states such as Zimbabwe and Burma – behaviour which has led to the ridicule and scorn of the rest of the world, to say nothing of the loss of life and liberty of those poor unfortunates living in those countries.

 

And these are but a very few of the straws that have been blowing in the wind in recent years.

 

The Scorpions are but a single example of the lengths to which the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (all members of the tri-partite alliance which rules South Africa but of which only the ANC presents itself for election before the people of the country) are prepared to go in order to exclude themselves from scrutiny by both the courts and the electorate.

 

When will the people of South Africa – as well as the rest of the world – awaken to the fact of the immense confidence trick being played upon them at their expense?

 

Do we have to wait for the raids on the newspapers and televisions stations to become more frequent? (It has already happened). Will we only realise our plight when the Internet and blogs are monitored, controlled and restricted? Will we have to wait for the situation in Zimbabwe to become a reality for South Africa (and so memorably and eloquently expressed by the unknown Zimbabwean who voiced it by saying “We have freedom of expression; we just don’t have freedom after expression”)? Will we wait until the cadres of the ANC and SACP are joined on their nightly dissent-suppression street patrols by armed MK war veterans? Will we wait for the type of bloodbath that surely lurks, Kenya-like, in Zimbabwe’s near future?

 

The writing is on the wall. We ignore it at our peril. We run the risk of a bovine-like acceptance of the denial and corruption of the hopes and aspirations of an entire country already brutalised in the not-too-distant past. Or, simultaneously, we run the risk of opening the door to hotheads and armed reactionaries eager to turn back the clock.

 

And as much as Spearpoint harbours hopes for this country and its people, it is very much my profound fear that already it is too late and that the time is nigh for the call to go out, “Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights”.

 

 

Spearpoint

13^th May 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t Kill the Criminals – Save the Criminals!

 

 

I thought so…

 

Reactions to the “Kill the criminals” news story:

 

– Indignation. Shock. Horror.

 

– Everyone jumping on the bleeding-heart political bandwagon.

 

– How could the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security be so callous and uncaring about our poor, defenseless, misunderstood criminals when they are so clearly virtuous and upright members of our society?

 

– How dare she advocate that the police kill them? After all, they are some of the most productive members of our economy – crime is about the only area of growth in South Africa.

 

…………………….

 

Spearpoint tries, in general, to be reasonably polite in his commentaries. But I’m not too sure I can continue that policy this time.

 

To the critics of the Deputy Minister’s remarks I say this to you.

 

What a crowd of ignorant, stupid, self-serving, self-publicists you are.

 

Clearly, you are not educated or intelligent enough to be able to perform the simple act of reading what the lady said. The words she uttered were clear and simple enough that even my five-year old granddaughter could easily understand what was said.

All your degrees, learning and experience in policing, politics and polemics have so obviously failed to qualify any of you to comment sensibly on the fight against crime – nor have they done anything to merit any involvement whatsoever in partaking of the leadership of this country.

The Deputy Minister’s words were “Kill the bastards if…” (did you get that?) If. IF. IF.) “…IF they threaten you or the community.”

 

Her words could not have been clearer.

 

Her words were entirely within existing laws.

 

In no way, under South African law as it stands today, can her words be interpreted or construed as being an incitement for the police to run wild on our streets. The lady did not issue to the police – or anyone else – a blanket licence to kill nor did she advocate abandonment of due process.

 

The politicians who criticized the Deputy Minister’s remarks have plainly demonstrated themselves to be as unsuited to running our country as the ANC has shown itself to be.

 

The Independent Democrats (ID) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), amongst others, have sought only to score cheap political points off the ANC government – who, as it happens, do deserve to be sniped at with unremitting ferocity – instead of listening to what was actually said and commending the courage and clear thinking of the speaker – ANC or not. For the sake of a headline or two and a sound-byte on TV, you have made utter fools of yourselves and, I strongly suspect, alienated much of the crime-ravaged electorate to which you think you will ingratiate yourselves through your unconsidered and downright stupid responses.

 

You all deserve contempt and ridicule for your self-serving prostitution of what you supposedly stand for in your vainglorious and desperate search for political power at any price.

 

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) should be even more ashamed of its unthinking negative reaction. Your biases, hidden agendas and overall inability to deal with reality have blinkered you to the fact that, as a supposedly independent and respected body seeking to improve the access to and delivery of human rights to all and sundry, you have chosen to dismiss and denigrate the human rights of the entire population to peace, safety and prosperity. Instead, you choose to defend and shield from the rule of law those who revile and pervert the rule of law when you are chartered to reinforce and spread the rule of law for everyone. You continue to do nothing for the human rights of the majority of the populace and, in your folly, you undermine and pervert our Constitution together with the hopes and aspirations of every single person (black, white, Asian, Coloured) in our country.

 

Our Constitution and such human rights as we all –allegedly- enjoy are a joke. Even as a banana republic we seem unable to produce banana sundaes – only banana skins.

 

 

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shooting to Kill the Criminals

 

Maybe it’s a bit premature, but I feel like cheering.

 

At long last someone in the South African government appears to have made a break from the usual line of bull dust regarding the fight against crime.

 

The Deputy Minister of Safety and Security has encouraged the police to be very much tougher on dangerous criminals.

 

During some sort of conference/seminar in which she addressed members of the police force (sorry – ‘service’) (yeah, sure) the Deputy Minister said (referring to the criminals) “Kill the bastards – especially if they are threatening you or the community”. She is reported to have received an enthusiastic response from those police officers present.

 

Spearpoint has had occasion to make comment on the issue of crime in some earlier posts (“Crime and Punishment”; “More About Crime and Rights in South Africa”; “A Little More on Crime in South Africa”).

 

Those of you who have graced my site and read those posts will understand why old Spearpoint is a small step closer to throwing his hat in the air.

 

How refreshing it is that, out of the blue – and in stark contrast to the stance and performance of the Minister of Safety and Security – a senior government minister has had the courage and honesty to break from the usual insipid ANC utterances and actions on how best to combat the criminals in our midst.

 

Good on you, Deputy Minister. Crime is against the law. The law is derived from our much-vaunted Constitution. Crime contravenes the Constitution and our Constitutional and human rights. Contravening the Constitution cancels the Constitutional rights of the contravener. He, therefore, has no constitutional rights and the police then have the duty to terminate, with extreme prejudice, those rights. Survivors will be prosecuted.

 

It is likely, however, that the good lady Deputy Minister will be severely chastised by her ANC brethren for daring to be so politically incorrect.

 

If a reprimand or dismissal follows her comments then you will know, without doubt, that the present government and the ANC has absolutely no interest or intention of further tackling crime and its aftermath beyond what they have already determined to be an “acceptable” level.

 

But coming hot on the heels of Jacob Zuma’s recent outspoken statement about the electoral fiasco in Zimbabwe, I am struck by the thought that, maybe, just maybe, we might be seeing some sort of shuffling of feet away from the more usual ANC policy of doing everything on the quiet – “quiet” diplomacy, “quiet” policing and “quiet” ethics.

 

Of course everything has been “quiet” on the part of the government. When you bury your head under the blankets for fear of seeing the bogeyman you’re so afraid of having to confront and take a stand on, then everything does go quiet. So you do not, then, hear your neighbour abusing his family, you do not hear the burglar coming to help himself to what he hasn’t earned and you do not hear your own family members conniving to rob you of what the burglar leaves behind.

 

Jacob Zuma’s comments on Zimbabwe and on re-opening the debate on the death penalty (see my post “The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa”) are understandable. He is trying hard to establish himself as a credible popular politician suitable for the role of the leader of this country and doing it in a way that will distance and distinguish himself from the “business as usual” style of Thabo Mbeki and his allies.

 

Perhaps the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security is, cynically, also positioning herself for the upcoming change of government leadership in 2009. Perhaps she just wants to ensure that she will still have a nice cushy ministerial job come this time next year.

 

I don’t really care.

 

For the first time the necessary words are being spoken. It remains to be seen whether the necessary actions will follow. I, for one, certainly hope so.

 

I just hope that the police are up to the task…

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa forbids the use of the death penalty in the normal processes of our judicial system.

This prohibition was part and parcel of the new Constitution drafted after the succession to power of the ANC in 1994. It was, I suspect, a reaction to the old constitution under which many ANC and other combatants had suffered during the years of struggle against apartheid prior to 1994.

It was also argued – correctly, I believe – that the death penalty was an irreversibly cruel and unusual punishment that did little, if anything, to deter violent crime; however, this argument was, for many people, counter-intuitive in a society, then and now, profoundly riven by violence and brutality at all levels.

The failure by the ANC government and its various organs to adequately and competently address and correct the problems of violent crime in South Africa following the egalitarian promises of the new Rainbow Nation has resulted in a growing crescendo of popular (if uninformed) demands for the return of the death penalty as the best means of dealing with the current tidal wave of crime swamping this country.

The public appears to be taking the upcoming national elections as an opportunity to try, once again, to get the issue back on the political agenda, particularly now since the influence of the ANC intelligentsia in the form of Thabo Mbeki’s allies appears to be on the wane. Calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty by protesters outside various courts in recent months have become increasingly vocal and have been clearly making a mark on the public at large and, so it would appear, on a number of political hopefuls ahead of scheduled national elections in 2009.

The issue of the death penalty is emotive and is perceived to be a panacea for many ills. It is an all-embracing concept which relies on tempting monochromatic definitions of life for its widespread appeal. For that reason it is most readily embraced and touted by those whose perceptions of the world tend to be unsophisticated and simplistic – and seized upon eagerly by those who would seek to gain the sympathies and affections of large numbers of voters in the quest for elected power.

Not that you can blame them, I guess. President Mbeki and his ministers have failed both to educate the public in their ethics and to demonstrate that a viable society can exist with law enforcement and judicial processes that are not reliant upon the death penalty. Their ethics have been obscure and tainted with pragmatic considerations. Their legislative creations, law enforcement, guidance of the judiciary and subsequent prison management have been selectively erratic, patchy and generally incompetent.

It is of great interest, therefore, that the one person most overtly ambitious for personal power in South Africa, Jacob Zuma, has taken hold of this popular sentiment of restoring the death penalty and made it his own. Not even some of the fringe opposition parties have dared to be quite so forward in their stated desires in this direction.

Sure, at the moment he advocates nothing more than re-opening the debate over the death penalty; for the moment, at least, actual restoration of the death penalty is not part of his declared manifesto.

But it is significant that, in a period of great personal political uncertainty (given his current legal woes), Mr. Zuma has made a very astute move to try to secure, ahead of the elections, considerable popular political support by appearing to be willing to address an issue that is most dearly held by those people (that is, the majority of the population of South Africa) least equipped to consider critically the implications and consequences of a return of the death penalty as a political and judicial tool of state.

(Mr. Zuma is a populist. Mr. Zuma is ambitious. Mr. Zuma is also hungry for personal power and, credit where credit is due, seems honest enough to display that appetite quite openly.

Mr. Zuma, I suspect, also believes that he is due a return for his years of anti-apartheid struggle.

This may be seen in the nature of the charges pending against him (assuming that he is, in fact, guilty of those charges).

It can also be seen in his public appearances when he ensures that he has a prominent entourage and bodyguard detail that is not only royal in its aspect and presentation but also far exceeds anything that I have seen deployed for the State President or any of his Ministers. For a self-proclaimed man of the people he seems to be rather worried about his exposure and physical proximity to those very people…)

The presidential aspirations of Jacob Zuma are, perhaps, a topic best dealt with in another post since, in a direct sense, they are not especially germane to the subject of the death penalty.

However, a strong warning needs to be issued to the people of South Africa at this time.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of any advocacy for or against the death penalty, now is not the right time to be discussing the issue for the simple reason that the apparently cynical raising of the matter for political motives (i.e. attracting potential votes in an imminent election) has to prompt grave disquiet in the minds of the public at large.

This might sound odd, but the argument for or against the death penalty is not a life and death matter in the lives of most South Africans today. Save for the (questionable) deterrent effect, the death penalty is only ever at the very end of the law enforcement and judicial process and tends to be far removed from the daily experience and consequences of crime for many thousands of people.

More immediate, more relevant to the outcome of the forthcoming elections will be those issues which impact more directly and more precisely on the lives of ordinary South Africans.

Thus, I would suggest that South Africans need answers and realistic (and realisable) promises on the following (amongst others):

1. Employment and skills recognition and deployment;
2. Financial probity and professional competence in all spheres and levels of government enterprise and activity;
3. Combating, controlling and defeating crime of all types for all citizens and residents;
4. Illegal immigration.

The issue of the death penalty is too important, too fundamental to the character of our nation for it to be reduced to a mere electioneering tactic and the subject should not be permitted to be hijacked for such self-interest.

By all means, let there be a debate over the death penalty. It is vital that debate occurs and that it is comprehensive and critical. It is even more vital that such a debate should be conducted away from the environment of immediate gratification, euphoria and bitter disappointment which can so characterise elections and their results.

Let the politicians scramble for their grubby spoils; the victors must then open and guide a national debate on capital punishment and open themselves to the outcome – whatever it might be – through a free, no-whip vote in parliament. (A referendum would not work, unfortunately, since our electorate is not yet sophisticated enough to be entrusted with matters of such profound ethical and legal dimensions – witness the lack of juries in our courts).

You will be aware from the above and previous posts that, from a personal perspective, Spearpoint does not condone the concept of not only capital punishment but also current theories and practices of penology, both here and elsewhere in the world.

It all needs some careful thought.

Spearpoint.

Opinion: “Outrageous” Journalism

Oftentimes, Tuesday evenings here in South Africa are uplifted by a television programme that can be penetrating and thought-provoking.

That programme is “3rd Degree” and is aired on eTV – the only non-State TV channel in this country. The presenter (and, probably, producer, editor, writer and chief bottle washer) is an apparently personable and intelligent young lady who relishes in the name of Debra Patta (my apologies if I have misspelled).

Ms. Patta – I use “Ms” here for a couple of reasons; firstly, because although the lady has previously admitted on air to having a child she has not, to my knowledge, conceded the presence of a biological counterpart in her life; and, secondly, although it is merely an impression on my part (the reasons for which might become clearer later), I strongly suspect that she might strenuously object to being tagged either “Miss” or “Mrs” – has, on occasion, shown herself to be a shrewd and competent journalist. It would be surprising if she were not (at least occasionally) since she is, I understand, also the main or a principal editor of eTV’s news.

On other occasions, Ms. Patta has shown a somewhat distressing tendency to dip into the gutter of journalism, both in terms of the content, style and delivery of some of her work. Generally, I have tended to ignore those lapses since, by and large, they have been out-weighed by her better work and, I suppose, one must make some sort of allowance for the fact that she has chosen a “profession” in which exposure and subsequent success is often all too dependent upon sensationalism and an appeal to the lowest common denominators in our society rather than the highest common factors.

The topic of last Tuesday’s programme concerned a subject on which I have already made comment, (“So, ladies, you don’t like the attention?”), viz: women’s attire and possible subsequent responses.

Now, to be absolutely fair, I must here state that I did not get to see the entire programme; thanks to Eskom’s depredations I did not have power restored to my humble hovel until just after 8:15 pm, thereby missing the first few minutes of the report.

However, from what I did see and hear (and this has been backed up from other people in conversation), I was truly shocked – even horrified –  at the base levels of competence and professionalism exhibited in the programme.

To begin with, in one trailer that I saw for the programme (the previous night, if I remember correctly), Ms. Patta’s voice-over referred to the sentiment that women should not wear mini-skirts in public as an “outrageous suggestion”.

Possibly this might be construed as an acceptable “teaser” for a trailer – it certainly caught my attention.

On the other hand – well, there’s nothing like pre-judging an issue, is there?

 Unfortunately, I saw only that part of the broadcast which dealt, primarily, with the wearing of trousers or pants by women. Perhaps not quite as contentious as the issue of mini-skirts, but obviously still a matter of concern to some segments, at least, of South African society. Even so, I was aghast at what I saw and heard.

1. Even allowing for the limited period I was able to view the broadcast, I could not discern any explicit statement or contextual inclusion of anything indicating that the programme was a personal (to Ms. Patta) opinion or personal (to Ms. Patta) editorial comment;
2. The questions and comments generated by Ms. Patta were neither objective, dispassionate nor fair;
3. The questions from Ms. Patta were biased and clearly intended to cause embarrassment, defensiveness and discomfort in those (men) to whom they were directed;
4. Comments and asides made by Ms. Patta were judgemental, derisory and insulting – particularly when she made direct and overt sarcastic remarks about her male respondents’ mental ages and their alleged inability to contain their sexual drives;
5. Ms. Patta made unashamed use of her prominent public profile to intimidate her (male) interviewees;
6. Ms. Patta appears to have made no attempt to enquire of and determine the extent and weight of various cultural factors in the matter of female modesty in African and other cultures; she seems to have been interested only in propounding her own views regarding the rights or otherwise of men and women to dress and behave in public;
7. Ms. Patta used this particular 3rd Degree programme as a personal platform to espouse her personal agenda.

I really do not mind if Ms. Patta has opinions and wishes to promote them. Good luck to her.

But shame on you, Ms. Patta, for unabashedly fronting your personal views behind your editorial and public status on a national broadcasting platform in the guise of independent investigative reporting. You constantly upbraid other public personages for their alleged abuses of their profile, positions and privileges. But you want your cake and to eat it, too.

And shame on you, too, eTV for not scrutinising and vetting a broadcast that carries your banner. I am aware that you want ever-higher ratings and that both you and Ms. Patta derive huge satisfaction and glee from those, like me, who are dumb enough to feed your drives for self-aggrandizement by responding to your attempts at journalism but who, at the end of the day, matter little to you except as proof to your revenue-generating advertisers of your ability to cobble together an audience.

Both Ms. Patta and eTV have done South Africa a great disservice.

• The victims of sexually-related crimes are not likely to receive any greater sympathy or respect as a result of last Tuesday’s 3rd Degree.
• The perpetrators and potential perpetrators of sexually-related crimes might react adversely to the programme and to Ms. Patta’s apparent open hatred and ridicule of all men.
• The self-styled “profession” of journalism cannot benefit from either the content or the style of the programme – although I suspect that your counterparts at the SABC might be finding it difficult to contain their jubilation at eTV’s ineptitude.
• Such women’s rights issues as really do need attention in this country may be be set back as a result of the strident and indignant single-dimensionalism of the programme and its presenter.

Ms. Patta, you might believe in Western feminist ideas and desires; you might wish to see them transplanted on to the continent of Africa. You certainly appear to believe that men are incorrigible perverts who see women only as sex objects and will perform unspeakable acts to satisfy their basest desires and lusts. You may even be sincere.

But, do you know, I doubt that sincerity and depth of belief. We can test it, of course.

1. Show more cleavage than you do on screen – well, try, at least;
2. Forsake a bra – although your needs in that area do not seem to be too demanding;
3. Start wearing mini-skirts and jeans when you go about your job and other activities – especially in public, and especially without your minders and production teams surrounding and protecting you;
4. Leave your cameras at home or in the office;
5. Don’t do this just in South Africa. Since you seem to believe that your feminist ideology must be applied worldwide then, please, conduct this little test elsewhere in Africa, parts of America (whence such ideas were first spawned) and the Middle East (and where you can also try leaving off the headscarf).

I would, however, suggest that you also take heed of whatever local customs and sensibilities might prevail. For your own sake. Remember that there are women, too, who genuinely and sincerely believe that modesty in both genders is a hugely important part of being a complete and rounded human being – something at which was hinted in your programme the other day but which, inexplicably, you failed to pursue.

You, on the other hand, seem not only to want to tease men by advocating scanty clothing but also then to punish and ridicule them when they are pushed close to or beyond the limits of their endurance.

But, then, either side makes a great sensational story for your ambitious journalistic appetites, doesn’t it?

Spearpoint.

A little more on crime in South Africa…

“Morning Live” – a breakfast programme on SABC (the State broadcasting carrier) – today had quite an interesting theme, addressing crime and the impact upon our society and citizenry.

Usually I don’t watch this programme in any detail except for the news headlines, the business reports and the weather. I am uncomfortable with the (often) blatant apologetic and praise-singing role that the SABC adopts for the government and the ANC in this and other programmes. 

Be that as it may, this morning I was rather surprised to discover that the programme (by the way, Morning Live, you are not a “show” – you have no dancing girls, jugglers, big bands or other spectaculars intended to entertain), was devoting much of its time on air to the topic of crime and related issues. Surprised, because this is now the second time of which I am aware in the last week or so that the topic has been addressed quite so critically.

Various guests were given (by what I perceive to be normal SABC standards) an interestingly intensive grilling by the presenter who, I felt, was trying to get beyond the more usual mealy-mouthed responses given by representatives or spokesmen of whichever government bodies happen to be under scrutiny.

This type of interviewing was sufficiently different from what I have seen previously that it gave me pause for thought.

(There were, I figured, three possible ways of looking at the reasons behind the apparently new style and content:

1. The presenter had finally got sick and tired of the usual placatory spin doled out by guests on occasions like this;
2. The SABC has, finally, decided to change its editorial policy towards a position more independent of its more normal toeing-the-ANC-line function; or,
3. Like the old days in the USSR, the SABC is, Pravda-like, issuing a signal that the government is, at long last, reviewing its position on its crime-fighting policies and practices – there is, after all, an election looming next year.

Assuming any of the above might apply – Hallelujah!)

But I digress.

Each of the guests  being interviewed appeared to be sincere, professional and, even, erudite. Their responses to many of the questions were even plausible. But plausibility and political correctness are not what is required to solve our problems regarding crime.

The party line (in this case, that of the ANC) has, manifestly, failed to work to date. And falling back on the now old and tired argument of inherited legacies from our apartheid past – relevant and pertinent as they may have been in the immediate post-1994 South Africa – just doesn’t hold water any longer. Much as the ANC might wish to continue blaming apartheid for all the ills of the next two hundred years, the fact is that, aside from the ANC’s current implementation of its own particular programme of apartheid, we are living in the present and there has been plenty of time to address and correct many of the problems bequeathed to us from the old regime – especially crime.

This is where our law enforcement policies and programmes have failed so dramatically and this is what we did not hear on Morning Live today from the so-called experts. Not once did any of the guests refer to, much less accept, responsibility for the current situation.

To be fair, I doubt that any of the guests was in any sort of position to actually carry direct responsibility for the levels and types of crime so prevalent in South Africa today. But they did not say that those who are responsible for the policies, the allocation of funds and resources, the quality of the service provided by the police and courts, as well as those who perform the enforcement of our laws are not being held accountable and are not being required to accept, at a personal and professional level, the responsibilities with which they are charged.

Perhaps this is not surprising since our political masters are so adept at hiding behind the incomprehensible concept of “collective” responsibility or liability for when things go wrong. The recent Eskom fiasco, numerous cases of theft, fraud and corruption in various government departments – not only have the individuals involved all too often kept their jobs and positions but so, too, have the relevant ministers and directors-general under the doctrine of collective responsibility. The term has been used very loosely and without definition of what it actually means and what sanctions (and how they are determined) apply in such cases. If our government were honest about conforming to some principle of “collective” responsibility then, logically applied, the entire government should resign if even one minister or appointee fails in the discharge of his or her duties.

It is the issue of responsibility that is the very crux of the current crime situation.

It’s a two-way street. The government seeks, theoretically and practically, to hold you and me personally and directly responsible if we evade our taxes, drive through red traffic lights, embezzle from our employer, poach abalone, possess a firearm without a licence, use the “K”-word, abduct and kill our neighbours and their children – and quite rightly so. Most of us do implicitly and willingly accept that personal responsibility. Why can’t the members and employees of our government and its various agencies do the same? Or are there too many political debts from the past, too much hidden patronage arranged in smoke-filled rooms/jungle camps in the nineteen-eighties to ever permit true, honest and transparent personal accountability?

We have the laws. We have the human rights. We have a great Constitution.

We have – nothing.

The Constitution and its precepts are too often regarded as instruments of convenience.

Our laws are not fully, properly or professionally enforced; as a result our human rights, where they exist at all, are devalued and insignificant. Words or wishes alone do not make human rights.

Fourteen years after release from a repressive social and political order has seen South Africa take many great strides towards improving the lot of the bulk of the population and the ANC deserves considerable credit for those achievements.

However, what was the point in empowering and enriching those who were previously disadvantaged when they and their newly-won possessions and means of acquiring those possessions are not protected by their government and its various agencies? The government manifestly has no desire to see individual citizens empowered (by virtue of being enabled and entitled to own and possess firearms) to defend their own rights to life and possession of private property; by default the government has taken that role and duty upon itself – and has failed to discharge it with even the smallest degree of competence.

Surely the ANC would not wish to be accused of having sought and achieved power merely for the exercise and enjoyment of that power by the few who manage(d) to scramble to the top of the ANC pyramid and the devil take the rest? Surely the ANC would not wish to be compared with other countries in Africa?

Although my personal experience of power has been very limited (I am but a family man), I believe that, whilst there are personal benefits to be legitimately expected and gained, power also incurs obligations and responsibilities which must be honoured.

Enjoy the perks, pay, limos, nice offices and furniture, the travel and so on. We won’t begrudge you. But these come with a quid pro quo which cannot be shirked or denied.

If you cannot – or will not – actually perform your job in a way that yields the results expected of you then, please, step aside and let someone else have a shot. This is how it works outside of government; do your job well and receive the rewards; do the job badly and expect demotion or dismissal. It’s fair and just. And it engenders tremendous respect in those over whom you have dominion. Think of the regard in which both the government and, say, for example, the current Minister of Safety and Security would be held if the Minister were to say; “Sorry, guys, I seem to have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of my job. I am going to ask the President to re-assign me to another area of responsibility better suited to my abilities and ask him to appoint Spearpoint to take over my role because I believe he might be able to get some better results”. Spearpoint may or may not do a better job but, at least the government would receive huge credit for being sufficiently self-critical as to recognise that it has a shortcoming and is doing something to rectify it.

(I should hasten to point out here that Spearpoint does not seek the post of Minister of Safety and Security or any other. My ambitions tend to be more modest and mundane.)

Leaders are expected to lead – and not just in insisting on compliance with their dictates. It is not “Do as I say” but, rather “Do what I do”. Leadership comes from example. Society follows its leaders (by definition). If society’s leaders are seen to be honest, hard working, transparent and law-abiding then society tends to emulate the example of those leaders. If leaders are seen to be dishonest, grasping and beyond or above the law to which everyone else is subject, then the rest of society will follow that same example and regard the public law with contempt; they will, like their leaders, seek their own selfish privilege (lit. “private law”) and disregard all but their own private interests to the stark detriment of everyone else.

Spearpoint.

Crime and Punishment

I have long been intrigued by countries around the world going to all the trouble of drafting and then adopting constitutions of one sort or another. Much national pride goes into a country’s constitution and the attendant rights accorded the citizenry. South Africa is no exception.

 The amazing thing is that, once having gone to all that effort, countries like South Africa then proceed to totally ignore that hard-won constitutional document (regardless of the form it might take) in the way that they treat their convicted criminals.

 Crime can be defined as being those acts or omissions which contravene public law. Since public law can only be derived from and is, therefore, secondary to a nation’s constitution, the contravention of that law can be taken to be a violation of that society’s constitution and the consequent individual and/or group rights of the members of that social identity.

 Thus, if one pulls a gun on a person and then one proceeds to relieve that citizen of desirable items of property, one is violating the enshrined rights of the victim just as much as if the victim is murdered. Likewise with pickpockets, fraudsters, dangerous drivers, and so on.

 In commiting a crime the criminal is, in effect (if not explicitly), stating that he or she has no desire or intention of being a part of society. He steps outside the law (becoming an “outlaw”) and in ignoring or violating the rights of his victim thereby summarily and immediately surrenders (upon detection and conviction) his identical rights as a member of that society.

The criminal is, therefore, saying “I don’t like or agree with this society, even though I was born and raised into it. I reject my neighbour’s wider norms and values”.

Why, then, should society continue to protect, feed, house, clothe and otherwise sustain such individuals? Why should the law-abiding members of the society spurned by the criminal continue to be robbed of money and resources in clasping the criminal to their bosom in the form of prisons and the huge financial, emotional and ethical burdens that they entail?

In South Africa, at least, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary, prisons are utilised primarily for the purposes of punishment and conveniently (if shortsightedly) removing the source of trouble (the convicted criminal) from the streets. Prisons are society’s revenge for breaking the rules.

What a costly revenge; and if the criminal undergoes no rehabilitation of thought and behaviour then society merely sweeps the problem under the rug until the release of the criminal – when, given the statistics on recidivism are anything to go by, the problem recurs and society is again confronted with the dislocation and costs of convicting and emprisoning the criminal again.

I am, of course, grossly over-simplifying some of the issues and I do so in order to make my point as quickly as posssible. Let us assume, just to give a nod to some of the complicating issues which I am skirting, that we limit the following only to the perpetrators of violent crime – so prevalent in South Africa as be the main type of crime committed.

Should a country, such as South Africa, at least not consider responding to the criminal by, in effect, saying “OK, so you don’t like our society and you wish to become outlaw; then we shall oblige you by removing you from our society in a manner that will also remove the benefits of our society from your reach”.

This could be done quite simply. We have large uninhabited tracts of land within our borders. We (if I understand correctly) have offshore possessions in the Southern Ocean. Let the outlaws be placed where we are beyond their reach; let them see if they can live without law; let them see if they can build whatever it is that they want but can’t find in our society without disregarding and violating the rights of their fellow citizens.

Sure, we can initially give them just enough materials (timber, bricks, cement, even food) to get them started without their isolation being an automatic death sentence. But after that, they are on their own. If they cannot build a house, they must learn. If they cannot grow or find food, they must learn. If their fellow exiles are violent and abusive it is of little concern to us since the criminal has already decided that violent and abusive behaviour is what he chooses over the possibility of law, order and contribution to the growth and development of a worthwhile society.

 Cruel and unusual punishment?

I don’t think so. Certainly it is no less cruel or unusual than raping a child, pulling a gun on a terrified robbery victim or engaging in public shootouts where careless crossfire kills a baby on her mother’s back or a scared 12-year old girl crouching in fear in the back of her mother’s car.

This type of solution might go a long way to reducing the widespread and very real fear of living in a country where it might be your turn in the next five minutes to be robbed, raped, mutilated for muti, hijacked or simply involved as a hapless spectator-cum-target in a shooting gallery located on the public highway. The deterrent value is high and the complete removal of the convicted perpetrator from the streets has to have immediate and positive benefits.

 Spearpoint.