Policy

The policy which guides the implementation of community policing in South Africa has, while consistently focusing on the functions of the CPFs, substantially shifted in emphasis in the course of the past eight years. The development of the policy is outlined below.6

The first formal reference to community policing, as the prescribed approach, style or methodology for policing in democratic South Africa, is found in the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993. In Section 221 (1) and (2) the Interim Constitution directed that an Act of Parliament was to "provide for the establishment of community-police forums in respect of police stations", the functions of which would include:

The oversight role made explicit here in the emphasis on setting priorities with the police, and monitoring and evaluating the police, suggests a greater public influence in policing matters than in many other models of community policing.

This oversight role was enhanced in Section 222 of the Interim Constitution, which directed that the Act was to provide for the establishment of an independent complaints mechanism to ensure that police misconduct could be investigated by objective parties.

Thus the political imperative informing community policing was one of accountability. The police were to be legitimised by enhancing public oversight generally, and particularly by enhancing interaction, consultation and accountability at police station level.

This emphasis on accountability was continued with the publication of the new government's first formal policy statement on safety and security in mid-1994—the Minister's draft policy document entitled "Change". This placed particular emphasis on the democratic control of the police service, and community involvement in safety and security issues.

In advocating greater democratic accountability, the policy statement also addressed the inter-related issues of demilitarisation, decentralisation and community consultation. In doing so, it contextualised the transformation of the police service within the ambit of community policing. As the new Minister put it, community policing "... must be made to permeate every aspect and level of policing".

Despite this emphasis, it is precisely this aspect of fundamental transformation of the manner in which policing is structured, organised and acted out that has arguably received the least attention.

The principles described above were legislated for in the South African Police Service Act of 1995, which formalised the rationalisation and amalgamation of the 11 existing police agencies into a single national SAPS with a single command structure. The Act formally established a civilian Secretariat for Safety and Security with oversight and monitoring functions and created the Independent Complaints Directorate envisaged by the Interim Constitution. It also formally established and detailed the functioning of the Community Police Forums (CPFs). In doing so, the Act contained the first shift in focus for the CPFs. Whereas in the Interim Constitution the oversight functions of local accountability, monitoring and evaluation for CPFs had been emphasised, the Act established the CPFs with liaison and communication functions. Indeed, the Act stressed that the CPFs were to function primarily to enable improved police-community liaison and communication. Specifically, the Act stipulated that such liaison was to focus on facilitating improved problem-solving and promoting greater co-operation and police transparency and, through this, local accountability.

In a nutshell, the legislation directing the functions of the CPFs emphasised three key responsibilities:

"... (i) the improvement of police-community relations; (ii) the oversight of policing at local level; and (iii) the mobilization of the community to take joint responsibility in the fight against crime." 8

These responsibilities are dichotomous and, in fact, contradictory. The challenges this cluster of divergent tasks posed for the practical functioning of the CPFs have been pointed out as follows:

"Is it reasonable to believe, for instance, that given the history of conflict between the police and communities, that a structure that was designed both to improve relations and oversee the police would succeed in both functions. Is it plausible that in communities where police were perceived to be oppressors and where the police believe that the most constructive crime prevention is police-led, that many members of the community would willingly give of their time and resources to assist the police in fighting crime?" 9

To add to this, one may ask whether it is plausible to believe that in other localities, those in which the police were more likely to be given public support, people would care about oversight?

Nevertheless, the Act made it the responsibility of the police, particularly the station, area and provincial Commissioners, to establish CPFs at police stations, and area and provincial boards.

However, Cabinet approval and the publication in May 1996 of South Africa's National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), which defined crime as a multi-dimensional social issue rather than a one-dimensional security issue, again shifted thinking as to the function of the CPFs.

The NCPS acknowledged, amongst other things, that the state could not deal with crime alone. Hence it advocated improving public responsibility for reducing the high levels of crime through maximising public participation in crime reduction initiatives. It also advocated a multi-departmental approach to the prevention of crime, which entailed high levels of co-operation and co-ordination of the activities of different government departments, as well as between the three spheres of government. In doing so, the NCPS aimed to provide the means by which the police, other government departments, the private sector and the non-governmental community (NGO) could integrate their activities. This put the idea of partnership firmly on the safety and security agenda.

The issue of partnership was taken up in greater detail when, in April 1997, the Department of Safety and Security published its formal policy on community policing—the Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines. Developed through a consultative process over a three-year period, the Policy Framework defined community policing in terms of a collaborative, partnership-based approach to local level problem solving.

The policy therefore articulated a shift in priorities from ensuring oversight and accountability to improving service delivery and encouraging participatory or partnership approaches to crime reduction.

Written to provide direction for police managers, the policy document detailed step-by-step guidelines for establishing CPFs, for change management, for demographic and local level crime analysis, for the development of partnerships and for local level problem solving.

The Department of Public Service and Administration's Batho Pele White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery also emphasised client-focused public services and the setting of standards for this service. This was the first explicit expression of community policing as a methodology for improving the service provided by the police.

The five core elements of community policing in South Africa were defined as:

Service orientation: the provision of a professional policing service, responsive to community needs and accountable for addressing these needs;



Partnership: the facilitation of a co-operative, consultative process of problem solving;



Problem solving: the joint identification and analysis of the causes of crime and conflict and the development of innovative measures to address these;



Empowerment: the creation of joint responsibility and capacity for addressing crime; and



Accountability: the creation of a culture of accountability for addressing the needs and concerns of communities.10

The last of these was outlined primarily in terms of the functions of various structures like the National and Provincial Secretariats, the Independent Complaints Directorate and the members of the Provincial Legislatures responsible for safety and security (the MECs).

The Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines was distributed to all police training institutions and stations. Informative workshops with police officers, many sponsored by international donors and facilitated by NGOs, were held throughout the country. In addition, a colour comic book (entitled Safer Streets) which incorporated the Community Policing Policy Framework and provided guidelines for the establishment and functioning of the CPFs was published by the Department in all 11 languages, for use by CPF practitioners.

Shortly after this, however, the Department of Safety and Security published its White Paper—approved by Cabinet in September 1998—which again shifted the role of the CPFs. Although affirming community policing as the appropriate methodology for enhancing policing in South Africa, the White Paper explicitly provided for strengthening the capacity of elected local government to 'supplement' the functions of the CPFs. This was to apply particularly in the areas of determining local policing priorities, and crime prevention initiatives. The White Paper enhanced the shift in CPF functions towards greater collaboration with, and assistance to, the police.

Although implicitly downgrading some of the functions of the CPF, the White Paper sought to position these structures as a means of communication and liaison, to facilitate local government's new role in local level crime prevention. In addition, the White Paper advocated a review of the appropriateness of the policy and the manner of its implementation, specifically as a means of providing "clearer guidelines for co-operation between local government and CPFs".11

In summary then, the major policy shifts affecting South Africa's community policing policy and, therefore, the CPFs, can be tracked chronologically as follows:

An initial emphasis from 1993-1995 on oversight of the police, characterised by explicit monitoring and evaluation functions for the CPFs.



From 1995 to 1997, an emphasis on building relationships between the police and the community, characterised by a focus on liaison and communication functions for the CPFs.



In 1997, a clearer shift in the publication of the Departmental policy on community policing, which, building on key elements of the NCPS, emphasised the establishment of problem solving partnerships to help improve police services and assist in reducing crime.



In 1998, the White Paper on Safety and Security directed the CPFs towards community mobilisation against crime and other social crime prevention functions.

The shifts in policy affecting South Africa's community policing policy are presented in Table 6.

Table 6(a): The development of community policing policy, 1993 - 1999

1993	1994	1995	1995
Interim Constitution (Act 200 of 1993)	Minister's Draft Policy Document: Change	SAPS Act (No. 68 of 1995)	National Crime Prevention Strategy
Structured democratic oversight of the police	Cultural change: a new (civil) professionalism for the SAPS	Structured liaison and consultation between SAPS and those they serve	Crime as a multi-faceted social issue rather than a one-dimensional security issue
Intention: address political legitimacy of police	Intention: address acceptance of policing in a democracy	Intention: enhance police and community liaison to improve legitimacy of police	Intention: focus and integrate government and civil society initiatives to address priority crimes
Provides for CPFs and Boards with oversight functions: accountability, monitoring, and evaluation	Advocates: ldemocratic accountability, demilitarisation, decentralisation, and community consultation "Philosophy of community policing must inform and pervade the entire organisation"	Establishes CPFs with primarily liaison and communication functions. Such liaison to be about: partnership, co-operation, police services, problem solving, transparency, & accountability Includes provision for CPF oversight functions provided for in the 1993 Constitution	Provides for a co-ordinated and integrated approach to priority crimes. Acknowledges that the state cannot deal with crime on its own. Advocates:· maximising civil participation in crime prevention initiatives, and· improving community responsibility for the prevention of crime

Table 6(b): The development of community policing policy, 1993 - 1999

1997	1998	1999
Community policing policy framework and guidelines	White Paper on Safety and Security	Focus on operations in priority areas
Collaborative problem solving	Participatory and complementary local crime reduction	Operation Crackdown
Intention: establish broad partnership with the community to improve police services and reduce crime	Intention: establish multi-agency approach to crime reduction at local level	Intention: address crime, enhance police services and public perceptions in priority areas
Details community policing as a methodology for: improving local police services, participatory problem solving, and· crime reduction Details method for establishing CPFs and main functions and activities	Provides for a supplementary role for local government on core CPF functions: Directs CPFs to co- operative relationship with local government in crime social prevention Shifts CPF community role to community mobilisation	Unclear impact on objectives of community policing
Batho Pele________________________________SDIP Public Service Regulations access and consultation client-focused public service service improvements standards

As indicated in Table 6, it is not clear what the implementation, since mid-2000, of the SAPS' three-year strategy, will have on the CPFs. This strategy aims broadly at reducing or stabilising crime in the prioritised areas to the extent that station level policing can be 'normalised' and effective. It also aims to improve public confidence in the police and public perceptions of safety. However, it omits detail on the role, if any, envisaged for the CPFs. Given the content of the recently published Interim Regulations for CPFs and their boards, it does not appear that a significant role has been envisaged for these structures.12

The interim regulations were published in May 2001, that is, three months after the Minister for Safety and Security, Steve Tshwete, said, in his press statement on the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cabinet Cluster's crime-combating priorities for 2001, that:

"... as part of our overall drive to bring communities on board, a single structure between communities and the relevant Cluster Departments will be established to ensure an integrated approach to community involvement in the Integrated Justice System. This will mean an integration of Community Police Fora and liaison structures of other Departments." 13

Although they have the authority of law, the interim regulations do not engage either with explicit direction provided by the minister or with the direction provided for the CPFs in the White Paper. Rather, the regulations direct the CPFs to fulfil the ambiguous and contradictory objectives laid down for them in the Act, and focus mainly on the procedural establishment of the CPFs and their Boards—that is, on issues covered in depth in policy five years before.

However, more significantly, the interim regulations either directly avoid or downgrade the issue of state support for the CPFs. They even specifically outlaw some current practices of the CPFs that facilitate support for their activities.

At issue here is the contested status of the CPFs. The crux of the matter is whether or not they may be considered formal 'organs of the state', and therefore whether or not the state has an obligation to sustain and support them. In fact, there is no doubt of this: the CPFs were created by legislation and exercise public functions in terms of that legislation. Therefore, South Africa's Constitution (Section 239) obliges the state to ensure that these structures are able to meet their intended purposes.14

This obligation has not been acknowledged in any practical or systematic manner. Thus, while the objectives of the policy guiding the implementation of community policing in South Africa have changed, government ambivalence towards providing meaningful support to the structures created by this policy has remained consistent.

Given such government aversion towards providing meaningful support to the CPFs, how likely is it that these structures will be able to reach into and garner support from South Africa's diverse and fragmented communities?

To put the question differently, in the absence of clear direction and systematic support, how plausible is it that these structures will be able to help make public safety and policing everybody's business?