When South Africa transitioned to democracy in 1994, the new government adopted community policing as its strategy to combat crime. The theory was sound: a partnership between the police and the public would foster trust, improve intelligence gathering, and ultimately reduce crime.
Officials were even sent abroad, particularly to the United Kingdom, to study successful community policing models. But theory and practice are two very different things. What the architects of this strategy 30 years ago failed to recognise was that community policing, as it functioned successfully in the UK, existed within a decentralised policing system.
In South Africa, the government attempted to graft a bottom-up philosophy onto a rigidly centralised structure, creating a policing model that was doomed from the start, as the continuous rise in crime stats in the three decades since has shown. Instead of empowering local communities to take ownership of their safety, bureaucrats in Pretoria maintained control, leaving CPFs (Community Policing Forums), the supposed vehicle for this community policing approach, as little more than talking shops with no real authority.
The UK model of community policing works because it allows for genuine local control. The country has 45 territorial police forces, each responsible for its own jurisdiction, along with three special police forces. While these police forces report to the Home Office (the national department responsible for public safety and policing, border security, immigration, passports, and civil registration, basically our Home Affairs and Police departments in one), they remain operationally independent.
This means that crime prevention strategies can be tailored to the unique challenges of each community. A rural town in Yorkshire doesn’t face the same crime problems as inner-city London, and its policing is adapted accordingly. South Africa, in contrast, has one centralised police force: the South African Police Service (SAPS), run from Pretoria. This means that policing decisions affecting every community—from the bustling streets of Johannesburg to the remote villages of the Eastern Cape—are made at the national level.
The result is a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address the realities on the ground. Even when CPFs were introduced, they lacked any real power or autonomy, as all meaningful policing decisions still flowed from the top down. The irony of South Africa’s approach is that it gives the illusion of community involvement while maintaining absolute central control.
This flawed merger has led to a situation where police officers on the ground are caught between the expectations of local communities and the directives of a distant bureaucracy. A CPF might highlight a surge in drug-related crime in a specific area, but unless the national police leadership prioritises it, little will be done. This disconnect is precisely why crime continues to spiral out of control in many parts of the country, despite the supposed partnership between police and communities.
Not more lip service
What South Africa needs is not more lip service to community policing, but real decentralisation. Action Society has long argued that the current centralised model is inefficient and incapable of addressing South Africa’s crime crisis.
In our policy paper on policing reform, we outline several routes to achieving decentralisation, each of which would empower local communities to take charge of their own safety. One option is to establish provincial police forces, similar to what exists in federal systems like the United States. In this model, each province would have its own police force, which would be responsible for law enforcement within its borders.
This would allow policing strategies to be tailored to the specific needs of different regions. Gauteng, with its high levels of violent crime, would have a different approach from the Western Cape, where gang violence is a dominant issue. Provincial control would also improve accountability, as local leaders could be held directly responsible for policing failures.
Another approach would be to strengthen municipal policing. Currently, municipal law enforcement agencies exist, but their powers are limited primarily to by-law enforcement and traffic control. Expanding their mandate to include crime prevention and investigation would allow for a more localised response to crime.
Municipal police forces could work closely with communities, responding rapidly to crime trends as they emerge. A third option is to empower private and community-led security initiatives. South Africa already has one of the largest private security industries in the world, with more private security personnel than police officers. Formalising and integrating these resources into public safety efforts could provide a much-needed boost to crime prevention.
Neighbourhood watches, farm patrols, and other community-driven safety initiatives should be given legal recognition and support, allowing them to operate effectively alongside law enforcement. What is clear is that South Africa’s crime problem will never be solved from Pretoria.
The current system, where policing strategies are dictated from the top down, is ineffective and out of touch with the realities on the ground. It is like trying to give braai instructions from the top of the Carlton Centre to a braaier on the street below.
The one at the top can’t see what’s going on, the one on the ground can’t hear what’s being said, and in the end, the meat gets burnt and nobody is happy.
Genuine local control
For community policing to work, it needs to be more than just a slogan. It requires genuine local control, with policing strategies developed from the ground up, not dictated from a distant capital. Until South Africa embraces true decentralisation, crime will remain an uncontrollable wildfire, and communities will continue to bear the brunt of a broken system.
And this does not have to take long. The Minister of Police has the power in terms of section 64F(2) of the South African Police Service Act to determine which powers, originally conferred by law or any other legislative instrument, can be exercised by municipal police services. This Ministerial power can be exercised with a one month notice period: the closest to a magic wand being waved that our new police minister could possibly come.
This is not a matter of reinventing the wheel but of using the tools already at our disposal. The law provides the means to empower local policing structures immediately. What is lacking is the political will. A new police minister could, within a matter of weeks, take decisive action to decentralise certain policing functions, giving communities greater control over their own safety. At a time when crime is at crisis levels, when South Africans live in fear in their own homes, and when faith in SAPS is at an all-time low, there is no justification for further delays.
The question is not whether decentralisation is necessary—it is whether we will act before more lives are lost. We cannot afford another decade of failed top-down policing strategies. The country needs real, ground-up reform that places power back where it belongs: in the hands of communities. Until this happens, South Africa will remain a nation where policing is an illusion of control rather than an instrument of justice.
Until we shift from a top-down policing model to one where communities have real authority over their own safety, crime will continue to rage like an unattended fire. It’s time for national government to stop shouting from the rooftops and start handing over the braai tongs.
[Image: ER24 EMS (Pty) Ltd. – https://www.flickr.com/photos/er24ems/4623704391/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12431312]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend