Abstract
During the first half of the 1980s, the issue of chronic overcrowding within the South African penal system formed part of an intense ideological struggle between those who supported and those who opposed the apartheid regime. Public debate around this issue acted as a mirror, reflecting early cracks which were beginning to appear in the edifice of apartheid. Since the prisons were the ultimate instrument of social control within the apartheid system, the ongoing crises caused by chronic overcrowding within these institutions served as a kind of “canary in the mine” for the apartheid system as a whole. The debates which took place during the early 1980s around overcrowding are also important because they form part of a common theme running through South African penal discourse as a whole. This article seeks to show how the debates on prison overcrowding which took place in the first half of the 1980s fit into a long-term pattern of recurring ideological crises surrounding this issue. The article is divided into two parts. In Part One, the above themes were explored through the public discourse surrounding the Steyn Commission of Enquiry into the public media, as well as the Hoexter Commission of Enquiry into the structure and functioning of South Africa’s courts. Whereas Part One deals only with certain early debates arising out of the Hoexter Commission – up to February 1981 – Part Two takes this as a starting point and traces a number of further themes which arose in the debates surrounding the Hoexter Commission between February 1981 and April 1984, when the Commission delivered its report.
Highlights
The purpose of this article is to analyze the ideological struggle waged in the mass media between 1980 and 1984 on the issue of overcrowding in South African prisons
Debates on the issue of prison overcrowding were only one of many ideological struggles being waged at the time, the debates are interesting and significant for at least two reasons: In the first place, it is OBITER 2015 contended that public debates on the issue of prison overcrowding throughout the first half of the 1980s held up a mirror to South African society, in which those willing to look could see reflected the inevitable demise of the apartheid system
It was pointed out that the debates on prison overcrowding acted as a mirror to ordinary South Africans, white middle-class South Africans who were the main beneficiaries of the apartheid system, revealing to them the moral bankruptcy of the system, as well as the fact that the system was untenable in the medium to long term
Summary
During the first half of the 1980s, the issue of chronic overcrowding within the South African penal system formed part of an intense ideological struggle between those who supported and those who opposed the apartheid regime. Public debate around this issue acted as a mirror, reflecting early cracks which were beginning to appear in the edifice of apartheid. This article seeks to show how the debates on prison overcrowding which took place in the first half of the 1980s fit into a long-term pattern of recurring ideological crises surrounding this issue. Whereas Part One deals only with certain early debates arising out of the Hoexter Commission – up to February 1981 – Part Two takes this as a starting point and traces a number of further themes which arose in the debates surrounding the Hoexter Commission between February 1981 and April 1984, when the Commission delivered its report
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
