INTRODUCTION

Let me start by thanking the Institute for Defence Policy and the Centre for Policy Studies for giving me the opportunity to present some thoughts on our approach to security and policing. At the outset, I would like to remind you that our policies are in the process of being developed and refined. I trust that this conference will assist in deepening the debate involving security policy.

Unlike the previous Minister of Law and Order, I have had direct experience of the security forces of our country! As a result of this experience, I would like to begin by emphasizing the new context in which I believe security must be understood.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Chapter 3 of the Constitution provides us with a set of Fundamental Rights, which is the new framework within which the security system must operate. Citizens are now constitutionally entitled to freedom, security and dignity. Rather than defending the narrow interests of one party in power, the security forces are now expected to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizenry, and to uphold and defend the constitution. Security, in this context, means the securing of democracy and freedom. The security forces have a critical role to play in entrenching constitutionalism and the culture of human rights. They must do this in their own practice, which means that a rights-based approach to police and military operations has to be developed. The establishment of this rights culture and practice within the security forces will be a powerful symbol to the new national democratic culture, and will help not only to develop our new democracy, but also to re-establish community confidence in the security agencies.

THE RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

The other cornerstone of our new approach to security is the Reconstruction and Development Programme. One of the reasons why we need the RDP is precisely because of the lack of proper security for our people: (following is a quote from the RDP)

In its dying years, apartheid unleashed a vicious wave of violence. Thousands of people have been brutally killed, maimed and forced from their homes. Security forces have all too often failed to act to protect people, and have frequently been accused of being implicated in, and even fomenting, this violence. We are close to creating a culture of violence in which no person can feel any sense of security in their person and property. The spectre of poverty and/or violence haunts millions of our people.

Without security, we cannot ensure development and investment. The success of the RDP therefore depends to a large extent on an improvement in the levels of security felt in every community, especially those most deprived. The security agencies therefore carry a critical burden in relation to the reconstruction and development of the country.

But, at the same time, socio-economic development will generate higher levels of community safety and security. In some cases this type of development is, in fact, a pre-requisite for improved community safety. Take, for example, a township which lacks streetlighting and telephone infrastructure. No amount of policing will make members of those communities feel safe, when they have to walk home along dark streets, and have no means of calling for help when intruders arrive to threaten their families.

Implicit in the RDP is the suggestion that improved social and economic conditions will reduce the incidence of crime and thus contribute to a better quality of life for all South Africans. This is certainly not a simple equation (that socio-economic development will equal peace and a reduction in crime). In fact, in the experience of the Peace Accord structures, and in particular its Socio-Economic Reconstruction and Development Units (SERDS), community development initiatives may even generate more conflict. What becomes clear is that safety and security are far more closely linked to reconstruction and development than was previously understood.

Achieving safety and security for all citizens requires that the Reconstruction and Development Programme be successful. "Security" is more likely to be the product of democracy, human rights and development, than of anything we may do to the security forces themselves. Our recent history shows quite clearly that the so-called "security forces" cannot ensure security by themselves. Security is only possible in an enviroment where there is greater social and economic justice.

This is not to say that the security forces do not have a role to play. I would be foolish to come to this conference and argue that the security forces have nothing to do with security! As I have already said, they have the central task of defending democracy and the Constitution. the mission of the security forces must be to create and protect an environment in which all citizens can live, work and exercise their rights without fear.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

Instead of referring broadly to "the security forces", I would like to turn to a discussion of the South African police services as part of what you have called the "Security Architecture".

A New National Police Service

The Constitution provides for one new Police Service, which will be structured at both national and provincial levels. This necessitates major changes to the current "architecture". In the first place, the existing eleven police agencies (of South Africa and the former homelands) have to be amalgamated into one Service. The process of amalgamation is necessarily the first step in realising the Constitutional vision on policing. Directing this process is one of the major challenges facing the new Ministry of Safety and Security.

The amalgamation process can be linked to a multinational corporate merger situation. It will involve the rationalisation of existing personnel management systems, which have created wide variations in procedures for recruitment, promotion, reimbursement and training. We will have to address the imbalance which arises out of the historical deprivation of homeland areas, and ensure that the new leadership of the Service is representative of the population as a whole.

At present we are caught in an anomalous situation: the Constitution came into effect on April 27, and created a new police service, on paper at least; but each police agency is still operating its own, old, Police Act. the passing of the new Police Act, which should take place during the coming session of Parliament, will provide a unifying legal framework for the creation of the new Service. We need this new Act before the national and provincial Commissioners can be appointed to lead the new Service.

Once the rationalisation and amalgamation has been completed, the relevant police powers will be devolved to the provinces.

The Provincial Police Service

The Constitution provides for certain aspects of policing to be located at provincial level. Again, this represents a significant alteration to the traditional "architecture". Once the process of rationalisation and amalgamation has been completed, certain powers over policing will be allocated to the provincial executives by the President.

The MEC for Safety and Security in the Province, and the Provincial Commissioner, will then be responsible for:

the development and prevention of crime;

the development of community policing services;

the maintenance of public services;

the provision of visible policing services; and

promotions and transfers of certain members in the Province.

However, from a perusal of the Constitution (and the Draft Police Act) it is clear that we are to create one, national police service, in which the National Commissioner will retain the ultimate authority, even over police functions in the provinces. It is envisaged that this will be achieved through the promulgation of a set of National Orders and Regulations, which will ensure that there are national standards of service.

The provincial dimension will undoubtedly be a continuing source of dynamism in the police service. It will also help to flatten the organisation and bring decision-makers closer to the communities which are their clients.

DEMOCRATIC CIVILIAN CONTROL

The Constitution dictates that the police service must be impartial, accountable, and transparent. The RDP goes further in specifying that the Service must be "firmly under civilian control". Taken together, these two directives mean that we have to develop a new approach to the political control of the police service in the democratic dispensation. This represents the third major alteration to the transitional "architecture".

We are currently in the process of developing a model of political control and accountability over the police. This model must allow for proper direction to be given to the police service by the Government, without repeating the mistakes of political interference in operational policing which characterised the apartheid era. In particular, we believe that the Minister must have a capacity for policy formulation and monitoring which is independent of the police chain of command.

COMMUNITY POLICING

Community policing is our new approach. this means that consultations with the community will become an important determinant of police practice at the local level. It will allow for the development of appropriate solutions to local problems, within the framework for the national standards I mentioned earlier.

This will require fundamental transformations in the police organisation and culture. In particular, it will challenge the hierarchical, militarised traditions of South African Police agencies. It will require a devolution of decision-making to the lowest possible level in the police service, with Station Commanders becoming the central managers in the organisation. Community policing will require that the police develop new approaches to the problems of safety and security at the local level, and that they adopt a co-operative approach with other government departments and sectors of civil society in doing so.

It is the community policing philosophy which represents the new approach to security which I referred to earlier. This philosophy sees the absence of safety and security as a problem which requires mult-faceted soultions. The police alone cannot solve the problem of crime and disorder. To ensure real security for communities and individuals, they have to co-operate, share resources with other agencies, and acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on security matters.

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude by using your architectural metaphor. Effecting the alterations to the security architecture which I have described will be much like carrying out, doing alterations or renovations to an old building: it will take longer, cost more than one ever anticipated. The Constitution has really provided us with a whole new set of plans, and we have no choice but to embark on the process of restructuring with patience, determination and enthusiasm. The transformed security agencies have the potential to become the cornerstones of our new democracy.