The politics of mobilization for security in South African townships

Abstract

Taking account of the myriad of policing initiatives that have emerged both from the grassroots and from the state in post-apartheid South Africa, this article investigates the politics of mobilization for security. Focusing on the coloured townships of the Western Cape, it argues that there is no clear distinction between vigilantism and community policing, but that they are best understood as two sides of the same process of mobilization for security. The provision of security in poor neighbourhoods is an important resource in the struggle for political support, and the article argues that the willingness of government to ban vigilante organizations is not simply a reaction to their supposed violence, but also a way of defeating political opponents. By the same token, community policing initiatives are established both to reassert the authority of the state over communities that are supposed to be prone to vigilantism and to promote a specific political party agenda. The article concludes that rather than posing a threat to state sovereignty, local mobilization for security in South Africa can be seen as part of a dynamic process of state formation. FRIDAY EVENING, 28 JULY 2010, MANENBERG, a coloured township on the periphery of Cape Town, South Africa. A Neighbourhood Watch patrol starts its duties. Two of its members, middle-aged women, wear identical coats provided by the Department of Community and Safety (DoCS) of the Western Cape Province. One bears the name of ‘Bambanani’, a community safety programme launched by the African *Laurent Fourchard (l.fourchard@sciencespobordeaux.fr) is senior researcher at the Fondation Nationale des Science Politiques, Les Afriques dans le Monde, Sciences Po Bordeaux, Universite de Bordeaux. I wish to thank Rita Abrahamsen, Sara R. Dorman, and the anonymous reviewers of African Affairs, as well as Jean-Francois Bayart, Elizabeth Cooper, Beatrice Hibou, Kate Meagher and David Pratten for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Different versions have benefited from insightful comments at the following seminars: St Antony’s College, Oxford University; King’s College, Cambridge University; and Nuffield College, Oxford University. I thank the Department of Historical Studies of the University of Cape Town, who welcomed me as a visiting scholar in 2008–9, and Nuffield College and the Oxpo programme for my stay in Oxford in 2010. African Affairs, 00/00, 1–21 doi: 10.1093/afraf/adr046 © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society. All rights reserved 1 African Affairs Advance Access published August 16, 2011 by gest on A uust 7, 2011 afraf.oxjournals.org D ow nladed fom National Congress (ANC) provincial government in 2002 to provide security at key public places. The programme is mainly known because Bambanani volunteers receive a stipend for protecting the premises of some primary and secondary schools in the province during daytime. The other coat says ‘School safety project’, which is the same Bambanani project as renamed by the recently elected Democratic Alliance (DA) provincial government to get rid of the ANC name. The two women wear their coats without paying attention to the rival political meanings of the inscriptions. They wear them outside school time duties, and that night they did not receive a stipend for patrolling the neighbourhood. They wear their coats while performing state functions different than those originally intended by the state. This story captures aspects of the relationships that have developed between township organizations and the state to provide security in poor urban areas. South Africa has a long tradition of anti-crime organizations – civic or civilian guards, parents’ courts, people’s courts, Neighbourhood Watches, street committees, vigilante organizations, to mention just a few – which fight against both gang activities and what is perceived as the social degeneration of township life. The prevalence of these organizations reveals a fundamental insecurity in South African townships, a central social question that state officials can no longer ignore, and a no less critical political issue centred on the capacity of the state to maintain law and order. Since the end of apartheid, providing security to South African citizens has been one of the declared priorities of national governments and a recurrent concern in a country often held to be one of the most violent in the world. National, provincial and local governments have invested considerably in transforming the apartheid style of policing to a more legitimate form – specifically, one that is more democratic, more accountable, less racist, and more respectful of the rights of citizens. Community policing – which does not have a uniform definition but may be used as a euphemism for a particular concept of police–civil society relations which include different local structures such as Community Police Forums (CPF), ad hoc anti-crime campaigns, and 1. ‘Anti-crime’ organizations consider crime today as both criminal actions perpetrated by gangs and minor offences and ordinary violence that constitute the core of the acts reported to the police. 2. Homicide statistics, which tend to be among the best recorded crime statistics in any country, indicate that between 1997 and 2000 South Africa’s murder rate was around 56 per 100,000 inhabitants. This declined to 37 per 100,000 in 2009, but South Africa still has one of the highest murder rates in the world. See Annual Report, South African Police Service, 2008–9. 3. Janine Rauch and Elrena van der Spuy, ‘Police reform in post-conflict Africa: a report’ (Institute for Democracy in South Africa, Cape Town, 2006). 2 AFRICAN AFFAIRS by gest on A uust 7, 2011 afraf.oxjournals.org D ow nladed fom Neighbourhood Watch Schemes – was soon identified as one mechanism for achieving the restructuring and legitimization of the police in South Africa. The outcomes of these efforts are subject to considerable debate, but – whatever else they may have achieved – they have not ended vigilantism, another notion which, like community policing, has no clear academic definition. Taking account of the various policing initiatives that have emerged from both the ‘grassroots’ and the state in the post-apartheid period, this article investigates the processes of mobilization and demobilization of organizations such as vigilantes, civic patrols, Neighbourhood Watches and street committees in coloured townships of the Western Cape. By analysing the political process by which state and non-state actors are mobilized for security, the article makes three interrelated observations. First, by exploring the genealogies and transformations of some anti-crime organizations the article invalidates the idea that there is a clear distinction between vigilantism and community policing, and instead suggests that vigilantism and community policing should be analysed as two sides of the same mobilization process. Second, looking at the specific roles played by a number of actors in the mobilization processes explains why provision of security in poor neighbourhoods is an important resource for political parties, local leaders, and more ordinary members. Third, in observing the daily work of some of these organizations, the article asks whether local actors contest, challenge, negotiate with or mimic the state in the quest for security; it also explores whether violence is at the core of these organizations and whether they challenge state sovereignty. There is an underlying interrogation common to these questions: to what extent does such mobilization for security shape public action against crime and violence– and more generally participate in the undetermined process of state formation – or, conversely, challenge state