Broken Windows` and our Lawless Society
blurb:isstoday:10032008lawlesssoc
10 March 2008 :’Broken Windows’ and our Lawless Society
According to the Pretoria News of 23 February, the Tshwane Metro Police Chief, Hlula Msimang, stated at a press conference that ‘the lawlessness on the city’s streets is beyond belief’. This is reminiscent of an article in the Sowetan of 28 January 1998 by Mike Siluma in his column ‘Soul Truth’. Under the title ‘Are we turning into a poor African country?’, he expressed alarm at the level of disorder and lawlessness in the streets of Johannesburg:
It appears that the city authorities have long since decided to turn a blind eye to the chaos, which some people condescendingly describe as a form of Africanisation.
To understand the implications of lawlessness and disorder it is necessary to briefly refer to relatively similar experiences elsewhere. The examples used here are the well-known case of New York and the relatively unknown example of Singapore.
The success of the crime combating initiatives in New York in the 1990’s is often cited in South Africa as an example of how a crime situation can be turned around. The then Commissioner of police in New York, William Bratton, wrote about his impressions when he arrived in that city in 1994 to take control of the police. What he saw was a city that ‘had lost control’ and ‘stopped caring’ about itself. The result was ‘a climate of fear and a decline in the quality of life’. Everywhere he went he saw neglect and decay typical of the ‘broken windows’ theory. The theory is based on the analogy that if a window on a building is left unrepaired, the rest of the windows will soon be broken. The essential idea is that disorderly behaviour, if left unchecked and unregulated, sends out a signal that there is no control and that the area is unsafe and ‘criminal-friendly’.
In spite of criticism about some of his methods, Bratton’s ‘zero tolerance’ law enforcement approach clearly contributed to re-establishing order. The goal of this approach was to prevent anti-social elements from believing that they are in control and to prevent a broken-down environment from becoming a breeding ground for crime and disorder. Direct results were achieved by reducing petty and low-level crime, while indirect results were achieved by creating an environment less hospitable to more serious criminals.
As early as the 1960’s Singapore implemented a fairly similar concept referred to as the ‘minimal tolerance’ approach. At the time, that country experienced a similarly serious crime wave - a situation that some termed semi-anarchy. Realising the urgent need to act, the Singaporean government began by cleaning up the police and reducing the levels of police corruption. They adopted a policy which focused on effective law enforcement and sentences that were intended to firmly deter criminals. The law enforcement measures were supported by initiatives aimed at inculcating an anti-crime culture as well as putting in place a more effective and efficient welfare system. They deemed it worthwhile to trade off some degree of personal freedom in exchange for the security of the people.
South Africa is rightly proud of its newly-found status as a democracy with a constitution and civil liberties that are the envy of many. But the incidence of crime and disorder suggest a worrying creeping decay. It is all the more worrying because the distinction between lawlessness and anarchy is uncomfortably vague. The irony is that we, South Africans, are often very intolerant and even critical when the police (including the Metro Police Services) perform law enforcement activities in relation to what is called minor crime or disorder. The clearing of informal businesses from pavements, removing ‘salesmen’ and beggars from busy intersections, stopping pedestrians from crossing a street, etc., are some of the common examples.
Indeed, it is shocking to observe the amount of lawlessness on our roads. Minibus-taxi drivers are perhaps the best example of a group of road users who believe that the law does not apply to them. They move about according to their own rules. Even worse is the fact that otherwise law abiding road users often follow this bad example.
The number of people at intersections either attempting to sell or begging for something is now clearly out of control. Not only is it dangerous both for them and legitimate road users, but it also creates an environment conducive to crime. This raises the question of whether this kind of behaviour ought not to be made illegal.
Signs of disorder and decay are also visible in many other ways. Examples are to be found in the overcrowding of houses and flats, and the almost uncontrolled establishment of squatter communities where there are little or no municipal services. Pavements, in places, are overgrown with weed and are strewn with litter and dirt. Are these not signs of ‘broken windows’ around us?
While it should be acknowledged that many of these signs are symptoms of deeper socio-economic problems that cannot be ignored, we should also admit that some of our problems are a result of a lack of political will to establish control. For example, in New York, while the police were instructed to enforce the law, the Mayor took charge of strategies to address socio-economic issues, including the revamping of the city’s welfare system.
We have all the right in the world to be concerned with the ‘broken windows’ around us, because this has a direct impact on the more serious crimes that terrorise us on a daily basis. It also negatively impacts on our feelings of safety. The latest attempts by government to limit or prohibit the possession of self-protection equipment such as tazers and pepper-spray appear to be yet further attempts at disarming a frightened populace and leaving them even more vulnerable. Is this really the way to fix our ‘broken windows’?
Dr Johan Burger is Senior Researcher in the Crime and Justice Programme at the ISS Tshwane (Pretoria). He writes here in his personal capacity.
