Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
02 October 2020 | Story Prof Theodore Petrus | Photo Supplied
Prof Theodore Petrus is an associate Professor in Anthropology at the UFS

The death of Andries Tatane in 2011, the Marikana massacre in 2012, and the recent fatal shooting of Natheniël Julies have one thing in common   they involved acts of what can be called police brutality. The issue of police brutality has emerged as a serious issue of national concern. Given the widespread concerns about crime and criminality in South Africa, the historical and contemporary context of policing and law enforcement has a significant impact on not only the South African Police’s (SAPS) ability to police crime, but also the public’s perceptions of how they police.

In June 2020, the National Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, reported in Parliament that 49 cases of police brutality had been reported since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown regulations. Cele said that while the police were allowed by law to act with deadly force, they were also bound to act within the law and the Constitution. And this is where we find the dilemma of formal policing in South Africa, especially in relation to another issue of national concern, namely gangsterism and gang violence.

A transformed police
 
Starting with the wider historical and contemporary context of policing, after 1994, the transformation of the SAPS to bring it in line with the new democratic principles of the new dispensation was a matter of priority. For the majority of South Africans, the police were viewed as the brutal enforcers of the apartheid state, concerned more with carrying out and enforcing the oppressive objectives of the apartheid government rather than serving and protecting the public. It was thus imperative, in order to restore the public’s trust in the police, that the police service be transformed. However, despite the structural and legislative transformations of the police, subsequent acts and incidents involving the police have served to equate the post-1994 “transformed” police service with that of the apartheid state. In addition to the much-publicised incidents alluded to earlier (as well as many others), reports of police mismanagement, corruption and criminality within the highest levels of the police service itself, have reinforced negative perceptions of the police. It remains to be seen what impact the SAPS Amendment Bill of 2020 will have on the SAPS going forward. Will this legislative amendment only address the issues superficially, or will it get to the root causes of the current challenges facing the SAPS?

On the other end of the spectrum, gangsterism and gang violence in South Africa also have a historical and contemporary context, too complex to go into any great detail here. Suffice to say that the gang challenge in many contemporary South African communities is not a recent phenomenon, but is a deeply entrenched issue, so rooted in these communities that it cannot simply be rooted out using a heavy-handed law enforcement approach. Gangsterism forms a significant part of the social and cultural contexts of the communities in which it exists, and is a manifestation of the same historical and contemporary structural violence and marginalisation of these communities. 

Consequences of conflict between police and gang-affected communities

When the police and gang-affected communities come into conflict, the dynamics that are exposed can have a range of consequences. In the Western Cape, for example, we have seen the emergence of community-based anti-gang and anti-crime vigilante organisations such as People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad). In Eldorado Park, we witnessed the fatal shooting of Natheniël Julies, leading to community outrage and anger against the police. In the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, we see communities demonstrating a lack of co-operation with police investigating gang-related cases, even going as far as helping known gang members to evade police detection, or hiding illegal weapons and firearms. And in the Free State, in September, provincial police spokesperson, Brigadier Motantsi Makhele indicated that at least 12 people were arrested in connection with gang wars. Yet gang violence continues, despite police intervention.

So the question is: what can be done about the problems of police brutality and gangsterism?

There is no simple answer. Also a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not be effective. However, recognising and addressing the following factors may be a step in the right direction:

1. Studies of police culture that address the root causes of police brutality should be prioritised, and the results of such studies taken seriously.
2. The police must become aware of the historical and contemporary issues affecting their current public perception.
3. Serious attention needs to be given to police leadership and management, starting from the Ministry of Police down to branch level.
4. A holistic approach to addressing gangsterism should be encouraged, rather than making it solely a law enforcement issue.
5. The politicisation of gangsterism and policing should make way for policies and recommendations based on thorough social scientific research.

Police brutality and gang-related crime are not unique to South Africa, nor are they only challenges in “developing” countries. The US, Australia and in the UK and France, cases of police brutality and gang-related violence have been well documented. In fact, these countries have also not yet found viable and sustainable ways of addressing these challenges. What makes South Africa unique is our specific context that underpins these challenges. So any sustainable solution(s) will have to be based on a fundamental understanding of this context. For as long as this is ignored, any efforts to curb police brutality in the carrying out of their duties, or effective policing of gangs that does not violate human rights, will remain unrealised and will maintain the current levels of distrust between the public and the police.  

Opinion article by Prof Theodore Petrus, Department of Anthropology, University of the Free State.

News Archive

UFS the only university in South Africa with a P-rated history researcher
2016-12-13

Description: Dr Daniel Spence  Tags: Dr Daniel Spence  

Dr Daniel Spence has been earmarked by the NRF
to become a future international leader in his field
of expertise.
Photo: Supplied

The University of the Free State (UFS) is the only university in South Africa with a P-rated History researcher. Dr Daniel Spence, a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the International Studies Group (IGS), and a member of the Vice-Chancellor’s Prestige Scholar’s Programme at the UFS, was last week awarded a National Research Foundation P-rating by the National Research Foundation (NRF). Dr Spence is the first South African historian to achieve this honour.

Leader of the pack
P-ratings are given to young researchers, usually under the age of 35, who have the potential to become leaders in their field. Researchers in this group are recognised by all, or the overwhelming majority of, reviewers as having demonstrated the potential to become future international leaders.

The rating is awarded on the basis of exceptional research performance and output from their doctoral and early postdoctoral research careers.

Other researchers from the UFS who obtained P-ratings in the past, are Prof Lodewyk Kock (1986), Prof Zakkie Pretorius (1989), and Prof Robert Schall (1991).

Extraordinary achievement lauded  
“It is an extraordinary achievement. There are fewer P-ratings, than there are A-ratings,” said Prof Neil Roos, associate professor at the ISG. Prof Roos said the P-rating was seldom awarded to researchers within the field of Humanities.

As a member of the ISG, Dr Spence’s research has flourished under the guidance of Prof Ian Phimister. Much of the success of this group is due to the way it operates as an incubator for high-level research, with scholars collaborating with each other.

In addition to Dr Spence’s magnificent P-rating, the ISG currently has three C1-rated researchers (established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in their field) and two Y1-rated researchers (researchers 40 years old or younger, who are recognised by all reviewers as having the potential to establish themselves as future leaders in their fields).

“From the time Dr Spence wrote his doctoral thesis on the colonial history of the Royal Navy, he has expanded his field of expertise so that he can address imperial and global histories of race,” said Prof Roos.

Demonstrated research excellence

Dr Spence secured a postdoctoral Research Fellowship at the UFS to develop an African case study to augment his Asian and Caribbean research thesis into a monograph. In March 2013, Dr Spence won a three-year NRF Postdoctoral Innovation Scholarship, and learned Kiswahili ahead of archival research in Kenya and Tanzania from April to May of that year. He has conducted archival and oral research in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, Kenya, Zanzibar, the Cayman Islands, Trinidad, and the UK.

Internationally renowned
Dr Spence is the author of two monographies, the Colonial Naval culture and British imperialism, 1922-67 and A History of the Royal Navy: Empire and Imperialism. He has been invited to present papers and chair panels at over 20 international conferences, workshops and seminars.

The NRF rating system is a benchmarking system through which individuals who exemplify the highest standards of research, as well as those demonstrating strong potential as researchers, are identified by an extensive network of South African and international peer reviewers.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept