One of the legacies of apartheid in 1990s South Africa was entrenched public hostility towards the police. This was a consequence of the role police played in enforcing apartheid and brutally repressing protest and resistance.
When Community Policing Forums (CPFs) were first established in the mid-1990s, their core objective was to help the newly formed South African Police Service (SAPS) build relationships with the public and overcome mistrust. On balance, they succeeded in blunting community hostility and promoting some cooperation.
But beyond this, the value of CPFs has been highly variable. The broad ambition, reflected in the 1995 SAPS Act, was that the forums would help prevent crime by maintaining long-term partnerships between police and communities. While there are positive examples, many others have been ineffectual, and some CPFs have turned into forums to promote political or even criminal interests.
CPFs are one of many applications of the community policing concept. The idea emerged from the recognition in democratic countries that police legitimacy, and thus authority, is not automatic. It must be negotiated with and through the communities in which they work. In democracies, elements of community policing are a necessary part of how policing is done.
Community policing is a flexible concept – more a policing philosophy than a set of specific practices. According to a 2009 study, various practices are ‘commonly associated’ with community policing. These include visible foot patrol, which facilitates direct interaction with community members (unlike vehicle patrol), neighbourhood meetings and liaison, coordination of neighbourhood safety initiatives, and work with young people.
As the SAPS is strongly aware, it faces a community trust deficit. This multifaceted challenge reflects the police’s reputation for ineffectiveness in improving public safety and high levels of police corruption. Establishing CPFs hasn’t been enough to build respect and trust in the police. And continued police brutality shows that community policing also didn’t encourage police to treat members of the public with respect.
The SAPS Act requires CPFs to be set up at each police station. As a result, police have tended to equate community policing primarily with establishing and maintaining CPFs. Some station commanders believe community policing adds little value and delegate it to relatively junior members. The SAPS’ rigid bureaucratic systems and compliance-oriented nature also mitigate against local-level innovation.
CPFs should not be seen as synonymous with community policing but as one way to enable cooperation between police and the people they serve. Research shows that community engagement can have a major impact on levels of safety.
And yet, despite the government’s frequent references to their importance, CPFs are not always used optimally and sometimes do very little. There are multiple ways CPFs can be better used to improve local safety, including ensuring better reporting and information on crime and collaborative problem solving.
They can enhance community understanding of criminal justice issues, provide structured options for connecting varying interests in the community with the police, and mediate when conflict or misunderstanding arises between the public and police.
For example, CPFs can discourage the use of public violence during protests and help community members resolve their concerns peacefully. The African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum works with CPFs to reduce xenophobia and prevent attacks against foreigners. CPFs could also help discourage vigilantism and promote better responses to local challenges.
But the fact that CPFs could be better used in some cases shouldn’t mean all community policing eggs are put in the CPF basket. A major gap in the SAPS community policing repertoire is the limited use of foot patrol. Building up and managing community patrols can strengthen community policing and deepen public engagement. Effective CPFs should partner with such initiatives, but in the absence of a functioning forum, police should cooperate with and oversee community patroller groups.
Also, community members who want to tackle crime should be aware that other non-policing activities can be highly effective. They might assist with providing parenting support, establishing safe spaces for children, and managing activities for young people.
Grappling with local dimensions of the drug epidemic, based on reducing harm and promoting the resilience of young people against drugs, may also be considered. Personnel from the government’s social development departments should also work with communities and police to ensure these projects are effective.
Communities with strong CPFs may be better positioned to establish such non-policing initiatives. But CPFs shouldn’t become the sole arbiters of who is and who isn’t a legitimate role player in local safety. Affiliation with a CPF should not be a requirement for participation in local safety.
The SAPS should be alive to the possibility of strengthening CPFs’ contribution to local safety. But improving police effectiveness requires greater flexibility in applying the concept of community policing. Particularly where CPFs are dysfunctional, the SAPS should expand the range of approaches it applies to building partnerships with the public.
David Bruce, Independent Researcher and ISS Consultant
This article builds on a presentation given at the SAPS Community Policing Consultative Forum on 6 September 2024.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
