Monday, March 11, 2013

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

 On Friday the 8th of March it was International Women's Day (IWD). It is a day I could not celebrate. IWD in 2013 felt very different to the other Women's Days we have celebrated. The brutal rape and murder of Anene Booysen and the killing of Reeva Steenkamp by her boyfriend hang like a pall over us as a nation. These are only two of the many incidents of violence against women that occur in our nation on a daily basis. I cannot celebrate when I think of women in South Africa. On the contrary, I become depressed and pensive. It's surely time that we as a nation, as ordinary citizens, rolled up our sleeves on this matter and did something. Here I am not talking about useless campaigns where we sign petitions or change our Facebook statuses or make impassioned pleas on Twitter, which David Bullard in his insightful article calls, “little more than politically correct breast beating which does little to confront the real issues.”i

So what are we do to? Allow me to digress for a moment to tell some of my own stories. These stories (all of them really happened) will give you an insight into some of my own experiences over the years, to put my thoughts on the matter into context. I have deliberately excluded any mention of race as I do not want the matter of race to cloud the issue. Suffice it to say that the stories I tell are of people of all races. These stories are a small sample of the situations I have dealt with or have been involved with over the years.

MY STORIES

My first experience of violence against women was as a preschool child. We lived in a typical middle class white suburb. One evening after my bedtime I was awakened to the sounds of a woman calling for help. The woman was our neighbour across the road who was being beaten by her husband. I heard my mother urging my father to “do something.” My father was a big, strapping and physically strong man who believed that a man was never to lift his hands to a woman. He duly went across the road and I assume sorted out the abusive husband with his fists. The next day there was a policeman at the door and a few days after that I saw my father wearing a suit for the first time in my life on his way to court. The man across the road had laid a charge of assault against my father and the star witness in the case was the very woman who had called for help. The presiding magistrate threw the case out of court and my father was a free man. The next time the woman across the road called for help, my parents pretended not to hear.

Then there was the young, newly married woman whom I was asked to go and see after her husband had beaten her. She met me at the door. Both eyes were swollen shut and she was badly bruised. The husband fearing that she might take flight, had locked all they owned (including the curtains) in one of the bedrooms and had taken the key with him to work. He did however leave the dirty laundry and some washing powder in the bathroom so that she could do the washing while he was at work. When I arrived she was busy washing clothes by hand in the bath. We stood in the empty lounge and the walls echoed as she told how he had beaten her the night before during an argument. She told me she was desperate to leave to go to her mother, that she did not want to lay a charge, that she just wanted to leave and put it all behind her. To cut a long story short, I helped her to retrieve her possessions and arranged a lift for her to her mother. Three weeks later she was back, seemingly happier than ever, holding her husband's hand and looking him adoringly in the eye. I was accused of trying to break up their home and their marriage.

Then there was the Saturday afternoon I was called to the home of a couple who were involved in a domestic dispute. I arrived at the time the husband was shouting and throwing glasses and crockery at his wife. There were shards of glass all over the place and there was blood everywhere from the cuts he had sustained on his own feet as he was barefoot at the time. I managed to calm the situation and subsequently became involved at a therapeutic level with this couple. It emerged in the sessions that the husband regularly abused his wife. His favourite form of abuse was to push his wife's head into the toilet bowl and then to flush. She was adamant that she would never leave him because, in her words, “I love him too much.” We could not move further than that no matter how hard I tried. I was flummoxed, felt I had hit an impasse, decided to terminate my intervention and to refer them to someone else. They never attended any appointments with the therapist to whom I had made the referral.

Then there was the evening I was called out to a domestic dispute involving a gun. I arrived to find the husband sitting at the dining room table, his pistol lying on the table next to him and his wife lovingly serving him supper. Apart from the gun on the table, everything seemed to be normal. They tried to reassure me that they had had a small misunderstanding but that all had been settled. Luckily the astute military policeman I had taken along with me had been doing some investigating of his own while I was talking to the couple, and the truth soon emerged. Earlier in the evening there had been an argument between him and his wife. Their three daughters aged 16, 12 and 8 became involved in the argument and that is when he produced his pistol threatening to shoot those who dissented. It was at that point that the eldest daughter, in fear of her own life and those of her sisters, bundled her sisters into the family vehicle and drove off to safety. He had stood in the road firing shots at the fleeing vehicle but miraculously, nobody was hurt. I eventually, with the help of the policeman, found the children and listened to their side of the story. I will never forget the beautiful 8 year old girl telling me with innocent wide-eyed amazement that, “Uncle! I saw the flame coming out of the gun!” The wife refused to corroborate any of what the children had said and would not allow them to make any formal statements. She insisted that there had been a “small misunderstanding,” that all had been resolved, and refused to make a formal statement of her own. To cut a very long story short, I had the children removed into foster care that evening, which was ratified in court the next morning. He was charged for the discharge of a firearm in public and had his gun licence revoked. There were a few subsequent incidents to this one with this couple but I should probably save those stories for my memoirs!

Then there was the morning I was called out to the casualty department at the hospital. They had admitted and were treating a female rape victim. She was a young, newly married woman. Her husband was away on deployment and had asked his best friend to look after his wife while he was away. This best friend had arrived at the home of the woman the previous evening with a take-away meal and some bottles of alcohol. They had enjoyed the meal together and had drunk a lot of alcohol. She passed out from the excessive alcohol. She remembered waking up in a daze with the man on top of her pushing himself into her. She asked him to stop and tried to push him off but could not. After he left she called one of her friends who brought her to the hospital. She was in shock and was displaying all the typical signs of having been raped. The doctor treating her was thorough. He spent the best part of three hours conducting his examination and compiling the rape kit. She was adamant that she wanted to press charges against the man who had raped her. To cut another long story short, the case never made it to court. There were no visible signs of rape or of a struggle. The man said the sex was consensual and there was nothing except her word to prove otherwise.

Then there was the man living in the room next to me on one of my deployments. He was having a relationship with one of the female members and was entertaining her in his room in the evenings. One evening I woke up to noises that I recognised as someone being assaulted. When I was fully awake there was only the sound of voices – two people talking in the room next door. The next day I asked the woman if she had been assaulted, but she denied it. About a week after that, once more I was awoken to the same noise. This time however, the woman came out of the room running away from the man screaming. He made no attempt to follow her and she later refused to lay a complaint against the man but she did cut all ties with the man. It could not have been more than two evenings after this incident that there was another woman knocking at his door. I overheard her telling him how much she admired him and how strong he was and that she had fallen in love with him the first day she had seen him. Needless to say, the pattern soon repeated itself. A week or so later I heard noises of her too being beaten followed by the sound of voices talking. A week or so after that there was pandemonium one evening when he assaulted her again and locked the door to prevent her from leaving. She screamed for help, people arrived to intervene and she was removed from the room so badly hurt that she could not walk. He was subsequently arrested by the military police and charged with assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm. She was examined by the district surgeon and made a statement. To cut this long story short, she later recanted her statement, they were both sent back home and shortly thereafter they were married! The case against him is still pending but the chances are very slender that anything will come of it.

I will tell one last story just to confuse the issue a little and to demonstrate how complex this issue really gets.

Then there was the young couple who had come to see me to seek help with their relationship. There were problems with communication and issues regarding gender roles in the relationship. After three sessions with the couple I could not understand what the problem was – it seemed to me we were going around in circles and weren't making any headway at all. One evening as I was falling asleep it struck me like a bolt of lightning. I had not been able to understand what was happening because I was looking at the situation from the perspective of my own preconceptions and prejudices. The next morning I asked the man to come and see me in my office. I asked him this question: “Is she hitting you?” The tears welled up in his eyes. I asked him to lift up his shirt for me. He wept tears of shame as he showed me the bruises. She used to beat him with a hockey stick – he was black and blue. He had never retaliated and his shame kept him from telling anyone. To cut this long story short, once the dark secret was out, the marriage disintegrated and they were divorced shortly thereafter.

THE ISSUE AT HAND

Let us however get back to the issue of violence against women. What can we do? How can we even begin to address the issue? How can I make a real and a meaningful difference? In each of the stories I have told I have felt helpless to do anything more than to stand on the sidelines and watch how things get worse. I must confess I have developed a high tolerance for the violence and abuse against women I see and hear about. There is very little that can shock me and that makes me feel guilty and even somehow complicit.

I support the efforts being made at the judicial level to establish special courts and to prioritise gender based violence cases. I support the efforts being made by the SAPS to train officers to handle such cases. These efforts however, laudable as they are, I do not believe are going to solve the problem. We may argue that prompt and efficient justice will act as a deterrent to those contemplating acts of violence against women, but that argument falls flat on the basis of evidence that not even the death penalty offers any deterrence against crime. We need to get to the root causes or else we will simply be treating the symptoms and not solving the problem.

I do not find it helpful either to conflate the issue of violence against women as told in the stories above, with the issue of the brutal rapes and murders of those such as Anene Booysen. They are perhaps two sides of the same coin but I find it difficult and confusing to deal with the two issues together. Surely the dynamics and the drivers of these two issues are different? The rape and murder of Anene Booysen has the dynamics of poor education, unemployment, drug abuse, frustration, hopelessness and men emasculated by their circumstances brutally trying to assert themselves and take out their frustrations violently on their victim. The stories I have told above do have some of those elements but to me are not in the same category as Anene Booysen's gang-rape and murder. I would like to talk about the violence against women we see in our own lives and in the lives of those around us that we see every day – the acts of violence that we become accustomed to and live with. To talk about both issues at the same time seems to me to provide an easy way of projecting the issue away from ourselves and in that way to escape any guilt or culpability. It's easy to say I'm not a brutal rapist but not as easy to say that I am not guilty of the other forms of violence against women or the prejudice that leads to the violence against women.

Violence against women has many shapes and forms, it is not just physical violence. The abuse may be verbal where the man asserts his power over the woman with words. This in turn leads to emotional abuse where the woman's sense of self-worth is attacked and she is made to feel less than human. There is economic abuse where the woman is economically dependent on the man and where the man uses that power to assert himself in such a way that the woman feels she has no choice but to submit herself to the man's will and whims. In a landmark study conducted in Cape Town in 1999, the Medical Research Council (MRC) found that 43.6% of the men interviewed had in the past ten years abused women. Of these who admitted abuse, emotional abuse was the most common at 90.3% followed by verbal abuse at 82.9%, physical abuse at 41.4%, economic abuse at 24.7% and sexual abuse at 9.2%.I  The interesting part of the study concerns the reasons given for the conflict between men and women. The major factors that caused conflict were when the man felt his position and authority in the home were being threatened. Abuse was very likely if the woman “sat on his head” or “spoke back” or if the man suspected the woman of having affairs with other men. I concede it is wrong to use this study to generalise to the South African general population in 2013, but it does give us a good idea of the patterns of abuse in men's relationships with women.

So what can we do? How can we turn this terrible blight on us as a nation around? I think there are two areas that we need to address as a starting point: the issue of patriarchy and gender roles, and the issue of violence as a way to solve our conflicts. We need to start somewhere and we need to do this together. There have been campaigns that target women and there have been campaigns that target men, but I think the time has come for us to be talking about these issues together as men and women in our homes, our schools and educational institutions, our workplaces, our communities and in our various organisations.

PATRIARCHY & GENDER ROLES

We live in a deeply patriarchal society. I grew up in a home where my father was the person who took decisions regarding the home and where my mother was the one who cared for the children, cooked the meals and kept the home tidy. We find this patriarchy across all races and cultures in South Africa, indeed it seems to be very deeply entrenched in us. We can debate the origins of this patriarchy and discuss the varied roles of culture and religion in forming us as we are, but it is in all of us. There have been huge strides in our society where we have legislation that prohibits discrimination and we have women in important leadership roles in all spheres of our society, but there is no escaping the patriarchy that still exists. One of the things I do in my job is to facilitate an ethical based HIV prevention course with new recruits to the SANDF. In one of the sessions the participants are asked to role play a family situation where it emerges one of the children is sexually active. In the ten years I have been facilitating this course, every single time I am struck and alarmed at how these young participants of every race and background fall into the roles of the father as the autocratic decision maker and the wife as the submissive partner who has to calm the domestic waters. I have tried to change the dynamics by making the males play the roles of the females and vice versa but this makes it even worse. I always guide the discussion after the role play into a discussion about gender roles but for many of the participants the roles are a given and the discussion a mere spurious distraction. I hear these young people arguing that, “it's my culture” and “our family works like that.” This feeds the fallacies that boys must be tough, they must not cry or show emotion and must display physical prowess to prove their manhood. Similarly, it feeds the fallacy that to solve problems in relationships between men and women, men must be better gentlemen, which Chris Roper calls a “more ethical patriarchy.”iii

Roper in the same article makes the plea that, “patriarchy is going to have to undergo a violent revolution before its proponents can understand that their way of being in the world just doesn't work.” We live in a country where people sacrificed their lives for freedom, but we can never truly be free where we have a deeply patriarchal society that holds men and women in bondage in certain roles and positions. Roper is correct in saying we need a revolution, though I do not agree that the revolution needs to be violent. We need to be working together as men and women. Men need to be challenged about their patriarchal attitudes, prejudices and behaviours. Women need to be challenged about the ways in which they accept patriarchy and are subservient, even to abusive men. The stories I told earlier in this article illustrate how deeply the patriarchy is internalised by both men and women. We must be talking to one another about our own internalised patriarchy in a way that is non-confrontational and enabling.

There needs to be a serious discussion at all levels of our society concerning patriarchy and gender roles where we acknowledge that the way things have worked in the past are no longer appropriate and together to find a new way. This discussion (I have deliberately avoided the word 'debate') needs to take place at all levels of our society. As couples we need to be talking to one another about our respective roles in the relationship. In the home we need to be engaging our children and family to talk about gender roles. Our LGBTI organisations need to be engaged, to help all of us understand how roles work in non-heterosexual relationships so that we can move away from the stereotypically patriarchal and hurtful view that one partner has to play the 'male' role and the other the 'female' role for the relationship to work. Our schools must be having this discussion as part of the Life Skills curriculum and the teachers facilitating those discussions must have been trained so that their own attitudes and prejudices do not obstruct the process. In our workplaces we need to be having the same discussion about how we can identify and eliminate the patriarchy that exists there. In our religious organisations we need to be discussing how we can eliminate patriarchal doctrines and structures to find a theology and structures that are inclusive and affirming of both men and women. In our political and community organisations we need to be having a similar discussion, with the view to expunging policies and structures that are inherently patriarchal. One of the thorny issues that needs to be addressed in our religious, political and community structures is the appropriateness of separate women's organisations. The only place I can see where a separate women's organisation might be appropriate is where that organisation plays an advocacy role to advance the equality of women and the abolishment of patriarchy. If they are not willing or able to fulfil that role, they themselves must be abolished and consigned to the patriarchy scrapheap. At a community level we need to be talking about how our patriarchal, traditional cultural views and structures can be revolutionised in such a way that they too affirm equality for men and women. The media must be involved, especially our national broadcaster, so that we can see, hear, read and speak about the discussion taking place all around us in our society. At government level we need to be having an open and honest discussion with one another concerning the issue of patriarchy and gender roles without it degenerating into petty political point scoring against one another.

VIOLENCE

South Africa is a violent society. Christopher Hope has this devastating insight:

What strikes the newcomer to South Africa is the ubiquity of violence; just beneath the surface of life run rivers of rage. This may be so because, ever since settlers arrived and shot the first local people they met as a way of signalling their future intentions, all contacts have been conflicts. It may be that, after years of enforced racial separation, people have no idea how to reach across the divide. But it is also, I sometimes think, because people actually like it this way.iv

South Africans pride themselves as being tough. So many of the terms we use in relating to one another are violent or have violent undertones. We threaten to kill or moer or klap or break legs or use a machine gun on one another. We become angry and aggressive on the road when we're driving. Every day people are mugged and robbed. We beat our children even though we know we're not supposed to. Anyone who has been into a casualty ward at a provincial hospital on a weekend evening will have witnessed how we resolve our differences – with guns, knives and fists. In another study conducted by the MRC in 2012, they found that 56% of all female homicides were committed by her intimate partner, with the horrifying reality that every eight hours a woman in South Africa is killed by her intimate partner.v Very few 'peaceful' protests are ever peaceful – most degenerate into violence and looting. The police invariably retaliate with their own brand of brutal violence, which escalates matters even further. We see violence on our sports fields, on our school grounds, on our streets, on our televisions and in our homes. Gangs fight for turf, taxi operators fight for routes. It is who we are, and as Christopher Hope points out, it seems we enjoy it.

Violence is the way we as South Africans have been relating to one another for centuries. The early white settlers fought wars against various black tribes. The various black tribes waged wars against one another. Once whites had subjugated blacks, the violence continued unabated, physically but also systemically through laws which deprived people of their land and their basic human rights. Apartheid was a system that was inherently violent and relied on violence for its perpetuation. The various liberation movements to fight the apartheid regime did so using their own violent methods but even within their own organisations they used violence to subjugate their own. The SAP and SADF in turn retaliated using extreme violence, but they too used violence within their own organisations to subjugate their own. Knowing where the violence comes from however, does nothing to help us deal with its reality in the present.

We are not officially at war with one another in South Africa any more but we are still fighting. We have violence so etched into us as a nation that it seems natural. It must stop. It has to stop or we are doomed as a nation. We have to find other ways of relating to one another apart from violence. We have to find ways of resolving our differences apart from violence. Once again it must start in the home. In the home we must make a commitment to one another that we will not resort to violence to resolve our differences no matter what or in spite of the role models we had. This must be backed up at community level with workshops and educational programs. Religious organisations and NGOs will need to play a leading role here as the already overstretched government resources will not be able to cope on their own. Schools need to be declared places of non-violence and places where non-violent means of resolving differences are modelled. Similarly, values of mutual respect and ubuntu must be taught and modelled. Bullying by teachers or learners must be identified and rooted out. Our workplaces and sports fields must be places where violence in any form is not tolerated. I am even beginning to think that we need to start having a discussion about contact sports such as wrestling and boxing, and whether those sports are appropriate given the violent nature of our society. Our political organisations and trade unions need to be brought on board here too, especially with regard to helping people voice their protests and concerns in non-violent ways. Every single government department must become involved in this quest for non-violence, especially those in the security cluster. The media will have to play a vital role in terms of the re-education of our nation so that we can hear, see, read and speak about this discussion taking place around us. Government will need to enact legislation that supports these initiatives, for example firearm control and the regulation of the private security industry.

There are other risk factors that exacerbate violence against women, that also must be addressed. The 1999 MRC study showed the following risk factors: substance abuse, low levels of education, a criminal history and poverty. It is obvious that all these factors feed into an already volatile culture of violence in our society. To address all these issues needs a multi-sectoral approach and I believe must be driven from the very top, the Office of the President. Let us however as ordinary citizens not sit back and expect the government to do it all on our behalf.

LET'S DO IT

Indeed, we can no longer sit on the sidelines as critical spectators any more. Let's turn our Twitter and dinner table outrage into something useful, into something that will make a real difference. The two issues of patriarchy and violence can and must be addressed by all of us, men and women working together. Let's start in our homes. Let's examine and interrogate the patriarchy that exists in our own homes. Let's talk about the gender roles in our homes, and broaden that discussion to the rest of our families. Let's talk about the violence in our own homes and the way that it manifests itself amongst us in the home. Let's make a commitment to living a non-violent way of life and finding other means of resolving our domestic disputes. Let's take that same discussion and commitment into our schools, workplaces and the various organisations to which we belong. Let's become involved in the discussions that take place at government level. Let's be prepared to make submissions and inputs when such input is called for. Let's support the government and NGO initiatives that are based on our inputs and commit ourselves to becoming involved at some level.

We can stop the scourge of violence against women if we do it as men and women together. Let's do it!


References:

i   Bullard D (2013). http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=35754

ii   Abrahams N, Jewkes R & Laubsher R (1999). “ I do not believe in democracy in the home”: Men’s relationships with and abuse of women. Cape Town: Medical Research Council.

iii  Roper C. (2013). http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-13-let-them-eat-cock

iv  Hope C (2013). http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-01-00-the-pistorius-killing-the-south-african-shots-heard-all-around

v   Abrahams N, Mathews S, Jewkes R, Martin L.J, & Lombard L (2012). Every eight hours:
Intimate femicide in South Africa 10 years later! Cape Town: Medical Research Council.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

POLICE BRUTALITY: WHAT'S NEW?

Pierre de Vos in his recent blog post, http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/outcry-about-police-brutality-sheer-hypocrisy/, rightly points out that we should not be surprised by recent reports of police brutality. In recent years our politicians have taken a hard line approach to crime and criminals. This approach has been accompanied by calls for more hard line intervention by the police in the form of “maximum force” or more recently, “lethal force.” The high number of police members who have lost their lives in the performance of their duties has reinforced these calls for the police to act decisively and mercilessly against criminals. The public has been complicit in these calls: social media is full of calls by the public to “show no mercy” and to “shoot to kill.” We should not be shocked when the police act in the way we have been asking them to do, hence De Vos' comment at the end of his article, “Spare me the hypocrisy.”

I think however that the problem lies deeper than we care to think. Let us not forget that the SA Police Service (SAPS) was formed as an integration of the old South African Police (SAP) and the various homeland police forces. The SAP was by far the bigger and better equipped organisation and so inevitably the smaller homeland police forces were absorbed into the new SAPS. The transition was relatively smooth as the homeland police forces had been trained by the SAP and were accustomed to the structure and methods of the SAP. The SAP was a paramilitary police force. It had military ranks, used military tactics, used military weapons and received the same if not better military training than their counterparts in the SADF. SAP members themselves were subject to strict military type discipline. SAP members who transgressed the rules were dealt with in a harsh and uncompromising manner.

The SAP was the backbone of the apartheid state. It was the SAP that enforced the apartheid laws and this they did with impunity, cruel efficiency and brutality. The SAP was at the front lines of the oppression of the majority, they were the faces of the oppressors. Their powers were vast and were increased as the regime became more paranoid. Violence was a part and parcel of the SAP, both within the organisation itself and the way it executed its duties to the regime. As a child growing up in the late 60s and early 70s I will never forget the police raids to check that every black person in our white area had a “pass” and how those who did not have a valid “pass” were beaten and bundled into the back of the old big police vans. It was the SAP who were entrusted with rooting out dissenters and those who opposed the regime. Policemen like the notorious Eugene de Kock were given free rein to interrogate, torture and murder detainees. Deaths in detention were common. The names of Steve Biko and Neil Aggett immediately spring to mind but they were but two of thousands who died in police custody. John Vorster Square in Johannesburg was one of the worst places to be detained: hundreds died there in police custody either by murder or suicide. Those who dared to protest in public were dealt with decisively and with brute force. I will never forget as a student at Wits University in the late 70s and early 80s how the SAP would move onto campus with dogs and shamboks to disperse protesting students or how they would spray the “purple rain” dye onto protesters to identify them after they had been dispersed. We however were treated with kid gloves compared to how mass protests by black people were handled by the SAP. Sharpeville and the Soweto uprising are but two of many examples of how the SAP dealt with black mass protest: people were gunned down in cold blood.

The SAPS was formed in the euphoria of the new rainbow nation. The transformation of the SAPS was a priority for the new democratic government. There was a recognition at the time that the SAPS had to move away from being a paramilitary police force to a community based police service like that of the United Kingdom. There was also a recognition that the leadership and structure of the new SAPS had to reflect the demographics of the country. This process of “transformation” entailed civilian oversight of the new police service, the demilitarisation of police ranks and the restructuring of the SAPS so that it became racially representative. This latter process had its parallel in the SANDF that was also busy with its own process of transformation.

It was in this process of “transformation” that the SAPS made a fundamental and fatal error. It took over the existing structures of the SAP and erroneously believed that “transformation” merely entailed replacing military ranks with non-military ranks and by getting the racial balance right. There was never any serious attempt to transform the old SAP structures and systems. The SAP was structured in such a way to uphold an unlawful regime by force and brutality. Its methods, systems and values were to dehumanise, brutalise and subjugate people to the will and laws of that regime. SAP members themselves were subject to the same systemic brutality within the organisation. There was never a serious attempt by the SAPS to interrogate the structures, systems and values they had inherited from the SAP when the various police forces were integrated into the SAPS. There was never a serious attempt to engage and deal with the culture of violence that was inherent in the SAP. Ranks were demilitarised and military style discipline abolished, but it is obvious that these well intentioned efforts would fail while the structures that depended on military style methods and discipline remained in place. The only time there was a recognition that structures needed to change was when the now disgraced Commissioner Selebi abolished special units within the SAPS, which had in the old SAP been a law unto themselves. Unfortunately, merely abolishing parts of the old structure was never going to be enough to transform the SAPS into the Service that is envisaged by our Constitution. The SAPS was doomed while it stood on the foundations of a morally corrupt and violent SAP.

I am not surprised that the SAPS, our politicians and we ordinary citizens (by our tacit support) are turning back the clock to restructure the SAPS back into an old style SAP type organisation. It's the only way the system can work while we continue to ignore the issue of real and meaningful transformation of the SAPS. Military ranks are back. Special units are back. There are signs that old military style discipline is making a comeback. The brutality of the old SAP has already made its cruel comeback at Marikana, De Doorns, Daveyton and in other places that have not been reported.

Police brutality. What's new?