Gun Control: Who is controlling who?

In a survey of 63 states South Africa is second only to Colombia in homicide rates involving a gun. Granted the gun is not the direct problem, but how it is used. It follows that with the frequency of gun-related violence one cannot but think that if there was tighter control, there would be less violence. Murder rates are slowly declining, but the number of people killed with guns is increasing. In 1998 over half of those murdered were killed with guns. The number of licenses issued for gun ownership has simultaneously increased. Nearly 200 000 new firearm licenses are issued each year.

Is this coincidental? Those supporting the gun lobby would say it is. They would argue that it was not legal firearms that were used to kill over 11 000 people last year. They would add they have a right to protect themselves in a dangerous society. In that regard, they are correct, but at the same time, we need to responsibly accept the consequences of incrementally arming ourselves.

In 1998 alone, 29 694 guns were reported stolen, an average of 80 guns a day. These undoubtedly contributed to predatory murder and armed robbery. A UN Commission shows that owning a gun in South Africa increases your chances of being a victim because criminals target those carrying guns. Further, the proliferation of illegal and legal firearms in South Africa is increasingly creating a culture, especially amongst the young that a gun is a normal and fashionable accessory. The paradox of gun ownership is that carrying a gun may make you feel safer, but it actually increases the chances of other types of victimisation of yourself and others.

To promote responsible gun ownership in South Africa a new Bill was passed by Cabinet last month. Intense opposition from the South African gun lobby then ensued. They feel they were not consulted and that the Bill, which stresses the tighter control of legal firearms and the screening and renewal of applicants for licenses, is untenable.

The issue of consultation is difficult to understand. The Bill is not law. It has been forwarded to Parliament where a full public consultation process and public hearings will take place early next year. Only then will the Bill become law.

The misguided complaints about insufficient consultation by the gun lobby have helped create the polemical impression that gun owners have been side-lined. The gun lobby has helped create a perception that the Bill advocates that it will be impossible to get a licensed gun. This is simply not true. The Bill is about gun control, not gun eradication. Those who wish to own guns for self-defence purposes will be able to do so. Special interest groups such as hunters and collectors will not be limited in the number of guns they can own.

Applicants will be screened before a gun license will be issued. They will have to pass a verbal competency test, provide a certificate that they have been trained to use the weapon, and sign an affidavit that they are not a substance abuser or have a history of violence. It seems strange that anyone would oppose this. We have to pass a test to drive a car, surely a test, and a minimal one at that, to use a deadly weapon should be welcomed. Surely any rational person would acknowledge the importance of having competent and stable gun users.

Renewal of licenses and screening is, according to the gun lobby, also too expensive. Again they have stretched the truth. Guns used by hunters will only have to be renewed every 10 years, and for self-defence users every five years. It is only licenses for especially deadly weapons such as semi-automatic arms that will have to be renewed every two years.

Guns have other costs that the gun lobby routinely fail to mention. Not only is there a human cost associated with the thousands of gun-related fatalities each year, but gun injuries cost the state a fortune. From a study conducted at Groote Schuur Hospital in 1993, it can be estimated that every 1000 patients treated for gunshot injury will cost about 30 million rand. One can also only speculate the cost involved in processing the 38 000 cases of negligent use of firearms the police had to deal with last year.

Granted the Bill focuses extensively on legal firearms. But licensing and regulation of guns has been shown to reduce the misuse of firearms across the board. In a study in Australia, it has been unequivocally shown that tighter gun laws reduce firearm-related crime.

Furthermore, the Bill addresses illegal weapons. It advocates mandatory 15 to 25-year sentences for illegal ownership and gives the police extensive powers to curb the proliferation of illegal weapons.

The Bill is hardly as draconian as the gun lobby would like us to believe. It simply advocates responsible usage and control that any thoughtful South African would support.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Gun control exists in most democracies. It sends out the message that guns are not toys and they need to be treated with due caution. It is high time a culture of respect of the destructive capability of guns was developed. At the same time the Bill starts to address the problem of illegal weapons.

It seems as if many South African gun owners protest too much and believe it is their constitutional right to mislead the public. They assume that if they are responsible with their guns others will be. They presuppose that their weapon will not be stolen and misused. They fail to mention that a gun owner is four times more likely to have their gun stolen than to use it in self-defence. They also live in a false reality that a gun accident will not happen to them, but then again so do most victims of violence until it happens. Their need for a gun seems to be controlling them, rather than acknowledging that it is time we responsibly took control of guns.

Published by Brandon Hamber, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Johannesburg, 1 December 1999.

The Guts to Fight Back

Review of Anita Craig, 'To Live for a Future' by Martin Terre Blanche & Brandon Hamber

The baggage retrieval system at Heathrow

Anita Craig is worried about many things: The over use of unstructured interviews, misconceptions regarding the sex lives of homosexuals, people who say "in my experience the importance of this cannot be underestimated" (sic), the hairstyles of black female TV continuity announcers, and so forth. We all have similar gripe lists, and labour to convince others of the importance and deep coherence of what to them may seem arbitrary and bizarre. Craig uses a well worn strategy to achieve this. First, she invokes the master signifier of a future directed rationality set off against all the various forms of soppy emotionality, subjective gut feelings and unthought through prejudices that supposedly characterise "life in general in South Africa nowadays". Second, she declares herself exempt from the injunction against subjectivity, speaking in the register of authoritative but highly subjective self disclosure. Thus we are told again and again what Craig believes, finds attractive, agrees with, is enticed by, worries about, feels unsure about, thinks, considers to be a "fine analysis", intuits, and so on; and paradoxically these intuitions all centre around a conviction that such subjective assertions do not constitute proper grounds for knowledge. 

This contradiction is by no means unique to Craig's text, but is central to the dynamic constituting modernity itself. The grand narratives of modernity speak of progress through a strict adherence to standards of objective, rational enquiry, while at the same time appealing to the sovereign, subjective individual as the ultimate guarantor of what is meaningful and important (Parker, 1989). The tension between rational (objective evidence; future directedness; standards; universal principles) and irrational (subjective feelings; the present; arbitrary preferences; particular experiences) cannot be resolved from within modernity, and Craig's text would have functioned equally effectively in re inscribing modernist truths had she chosen to champion irrationality instead. 

Seen from a modernist universe where everything has to be positioned between the two poles of rationality or irrationality, objectivity or subjectivity, reason or schmaltz, postmodernity appears not as a (potential) route out of the impasse, but as emblematic of the touchy feely, schmaltzy side of the coin. In fairness, Craig does imply that her critique is aimed primarily against "thin" readings of postmodernity (that seek to equate it with extreme relativism, for example) although for the most part she nevertheless continues to operate as if such remarkably naive readings actually constituted an adequate understanding of postmodernity. Similarly, she tries to avoid presenting reason as purely based on universal principles, defining it in explicitly interactionist and pragmatic terms in places almost reminiscent of the democratic, workshoppy style of knowledge production she so vehemently attacks elsewhere. Such displays of moderation and even handedness does not, however, detract from the extent to which Craig's text is overwritten by the fundamental modernist duality displaying exactly the kind of "not knowing about knowledge" it accuses others of. 

Precious bodily fluids

Understanding Craig's text as structured by a certain formulaic logic of binary opposites does not explain why it sides with the "reasonable" side of the opposition or why it should populate the "unreasonable" side with such an idiosyncratic cast of characters. Journalists reporting on Verwoerd's grandson, people crying (apparently excessively or inappropriately) at Truth Commission hearings, action researchers, people exhibiting superficially pleasant dispositions, image consultants, people who object to sexist jokes, people who base their land claims on the fact that they were the first occupiers, and so on and so forth all are presented as contributing in one way or another to the rot. 

Although Craig claims allegiance to the new democratic order and makes liberal use of the first person plural, her take on what constitutes important issues is clearly at variance with that of the majority of South Africans. The majority would be more likely, for example, to see the massive unemployment rate (rather than say the current fad for motivational speakers), as well as the structural oppression of the past, as key manifestations of an underlying lack of rationality. 

What is silenced in Craig's critique is the extent to which historical processes have their own implicit reasonableness. South Africa is currently still in a period shaped by the politics of legitimacy (in which, for example, it is reasonable to base employment decisions in part on the logic of restorative racial justice), but may well be moving into an era shaped by the politics of delivery in which the electorate will shift from a position of "I vote for them because they are legitimate" to "I vote for them because they can build me a house and they will do it". There is of course no reason why Craig should be in step with such processes, but in wanting to play the role of prophet standing outside these historical contingencies she runs the risk that her text may cease to orient itself in relation to commonly recognised points of reference and be reduced instead to existing in a world of its own making. 

Craig's insistent warnings against the dangers of emotionality perhaps borders on the obsessional, and in places her text does threaten to deteriorate into a form of disassociated conspiracy theory. More disturbing, however, is the tendency for the text not to lose its connection with reality, but rather to align itself with the reactionary politics of (mainly white) privilege. This is a reading which Craig repeatedly seeks to dispel, but which is hard to avoid given the history of "race". Western conceptions of rationality have for many centuries depended on a distinction between reflective, abstract thinking supposedly characteristic of (white) civilization and the impulse driven, brutish behaviour thought to belong to (black) savages. Thus it is difficult to appeal to the concept of reason without at the same time invoking a centuries old discourse of racial inferiority. This is doubly so when a critique of social conditions as being unreasonable is launched in the years immediately after the installation of a predominantly black government. Craig's text is clearly not intended as racist and whether unintended racist overtones can be detected in it is obviously a matter of debate. However, it cannot but be read against a background where most privileged white South Africans constantly hear "warning bells" ringing and are convinced that decisive action is needed to prevent a slide into unreason and anarchy, while most black South Africans are filled with optimism about the future (Reality Check, 1999). 

Craig should be commended for raising uncomfortable questions and for refusing to be politically correct (how many other academics would be willing to mention "women, blacks, fools, even multiple murderers" in one breath?). Like the Democratic Party's Tony Leon during the 1999 elections, she clearly has "the guts to fight back", although (as with Tony Leon) some may be a little uncomfortable about who she perceives to be the enemy and what kind of future she may be taking us back to. 

Published by Martin Terre Blanche & Brandon Hamber in Psychology in Society (1999), 25, pp.60-62.

References

Parker, I (1989). The crisis in modern social psychology and how to end it. London: Routledge. 

Reality Check (1999). Survey of the South African Population. The Sunday Independent, 2 May 1999.

 

Reparations debate must begin anew

A year has passed since the truth commission submitted its final report to the then president Nelson Mandela and the public.  Unfortunately, other than the occasional amnesty report, a deafening silence prevails about what is to happen next. 

 The list of recommendations made by the TRC received passing reference in parliament then disappeared from the news.  The most controversial component of the TRC's recommendations, the reparations policy, also seems to be slipping from the national agenda. 

 One of the sectors the commission called on to redress its past was business.  It is indisputable that until the dying days of apartheid, the system continued to create an economic environment conducive to white economic advancement and unfavourable to black labour.

 Should business pay for a reparations programme? Or more pragmatically, does the country have enough resources?  And, what is government doing to facilitate this process?

 There are no easy answers.  But the lack of public debate so far means that the reparations process may be reduced to pragmatics before any principles have even been set.  Step one in the process should be to establish whether survivors of violence have a right to reparation in the first place.  To date, most South Africans and government have failed to even attempt to answer this question.

Reparations for those who suffered in the past, according to the TRC report, should include financial compensation and mechanisms from the erection of headstones to programmes for better access to social services.  Internationally there is a growing recognition that reparations of this sort are integral to justice.  Bodies such as the UN are advocating that compensation for victims of political and criminal violence should be legislated as a matter of course.   South Africa lags hopelessly behind in these debates.

In South Africa, the rights of victims seem to be overruled by potential cost factors.  There seems to be a covert accord between business and the government that any reparations programme would be too expensive.  This is odd considering no substantial investigations, or research, into the issue has been undertaken by government or business.

The truth commission argues that the financial component of reparation alone, for those found to be victims, should be around R21 700 annually for each victim or their beneficiaries.  With an estimated 22 000 victims being paid for a suggested six years, this would amount to R477 million a year, or close to 3 billion over the entire period.  Currently, the responsibility to implement this, as well as the equally important symbolic mechanisms of reparation, rests with government. 

The commission recognised the potential economic drain and made a number of suggestions on how to fund the process.  These included: a wealth tax; a once-off levy on corporate and private income; listed companies making a once-off donation of 1 percent of their market capitalisation; a retrospective surcharge on corporate profits; the suspension of all taxes on land and other material donations to formerly disadvantaged communities; debt cancellation; and the utilisation of the South African Risks Insurance Association Fund as a source of funds.

These suggestions seem to have been written off before the debate about practicalities has even started.   The commission's suggestions should provide a welcomed starting point for incorporating the business sector into the process of reconciliation.  If South Africa is ever to move beyond its third world status, it is essential that the benefits of macroeconomic policies for the business sector are counterbalanced by social obligations.  

The very least that victims of apartheid are owed is that the reparations issue is discussed publicly.  Government must take a lead in that regard.  A point of departure for business, and those who feel they owe nothing to those victimised in the past, should be to address three issues in a direct fashion:

• Why do they feel they are morally exempt from making a contribution to any reparations programme. 
• They should address each of the commission's suggestions in detail, arguing why they feel they make no fiscal sense and can therefore be justly ignored; and
• They should outline what it is they are currently doing to redress the imbalances of the past.

This process needs to be supported by government. Government has earmarked R300 million (at the time about £30 million) for the reparations process of which it has spent just R25 million.  Eight thousand people have received about R3500 each as a so-called interim payment.

This is minuscule next to the funds spent on granting amnesty - and laughable in the face of some of the civil claims victims have forfeited in the name of furthering reconciliation. 

 A long term, substantial reparations programme seems a long way off. It would need to include financial compensation, symbolic measures like building memorials, and the assurance that victims get adequate social and medical assistance.

Surely government recognises that the current lack of debate about the granting of reparations to victims of political violence is nothing short of an embarrassment for South Africa, which is supposedly a champion of human rights. Not only were victims' rights to justice undermined by the amnesty provisions, but the lukewarm approach to reparations by all sectors in society, including the government, remains a constant reminder that human rights principles have barely taken root.

Originally published Brandon Hamber & Kamilla Rasmussen, Business Day, Friday 29 October 1999

Brandon Hamber is a fromer programme manager and Kamilla Rasmussen an intern at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in Johannesburg.

 

Johannesburg Crime Stories

A few nights ago I thought I heard a gunshot
I read in the newspaper the next day
that the sound I had heard was indeed a gun
that was fired during a car-hijacking
the driver died face down near to his home
the newspapers further revealed
weeks later
that the man who died face down on the tar
was ripping a company off for millions
and it was his stolen wealth that had enabled him
to buy the new car
that was so attractive to a criminal
that it was worth killing for
the story went on to say
that the car had been recovered in the suburbs
on the same day as the fraudulent man’s funeral
the car
which was now second-hand
was found in the possession of another businessman
who really wanted a new car with all the trimmings
but could not afford it
because his child needed private schooling
which was essential to prevent his son
from mixing with unsavoury elements
the man is now being charged with buying stolen goods
and his wife is appalled by the crime wave
and how the innocent seem to always come off second
what is more
is that yesterday
she read
that a gorilla was shot in a bizarre shoot-out
with a criminal at the zoo
so directly after attending her husband’s hearing
she wrote to the newspaper
calling for the police to get tougher on crime
strangely the hijacker’s wife read the letter
she showed it to a neighbour
who strongly agreed with the views expressed
because recently seven houses had been robbed
in their street

Published by Brandon Hamber
New Contrast, 1999, No. 108, Volume 27, Number 4, p. 72-73

South Africa: Freedom fighter with a heart of gold laid to rest

 Maggie Friedman and Brandon Hamber remember Sylvia Dlomo-Jele, The Sowetan

Johannesburg — Sylvia Dlomo-Jele was a symbol of strength and courage for bereaved family of victims who suffered under apartheid. She passed away on Saturday March 13.

Photo by Vibhu / Unsplash

Sylvia was a founder member of the Khulumani Support Group, which gave courage to her fellow bereaved victims to speak out and demand the truth about the past.

The members of Khulumani supported one another during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Khulumani in part owes its growth to Sylvia's commitment and her ability to network with the mothers of Soweto.

Sylvia knew how to comfort and she led people with spirituality and dedication. Her strong voice often intervened in song when meetings threatened to get over-emotional.

In our view Sylvia fundamentally changed the process of the TRC. Many people do not know that the first draft of the TRC legislation argued for the hearings to be held behind closed doors. On hearing this, Sylvia went door-to-door among people she knew in Soweto and asked them to come to a press conference at the Centre for the Study of Violence.

This non-government organisation and others issued a statement condemning the Government's proposals that amnesty applications be heard in secret.

At the meeting Sylvia spoke out strongly and emotionally. The presence of the victims Sylvia had personally helped get to the press conference gave the meeting a power it would not otherwise have had. However, Sylvia did not stop there.

Together with Maggie Friedman and the late Chris Ribiero she then flew to Cape Town in February 1995 to take up the issue directly with the Parliamentary Select Committee on Justice.

Sylvia's words at that meeting were unforgettable: "Now I hear that everything is going to be behind closed doors. I am pleading as a mother. I want to know who killed my son. I cannot forgive those people who killed my son without speaking to them." She spoke straight from her heart, as she always did. We have no doubt that her input significantly helped to get the secrecy clause dropped.

All the hearings of the TRC are now in public - something most of us take for granted. However, we should not forget that Sylvia too was a survivor of a terrible past. She was one of the first people to testify before the TRC.

She related how her son Sicelo Dlomo was found in 1988 shot dead in an open field in Soweto. His killers were unknown. Sylvia knew that the answer to the riddle of Sicelo's death was not simple but by the time of the amnesty hearing this year she had discovered that her son's murderers were his young comrades, who she had welcomed into her own home. We believe that the stress of this discovery was finally too much for her. In this regard Sylvia continues to symbolise the plight of many bereaved victims who have been left with nothing but unfinished truths about the past.

Her death reminds us that it is people like Sylvia who ultimately paid the price for the democracy we now enjoy. To us she embodied the meaning of Khulumani. She was able to make the world understand the pain of bereaved mothers and their anger against those who go unpunished.

To us she was a mother, a friend, a teacher and freedom-fighter. Her wisdom is immortalised on video saying: "When you are in the fields alone you are not heard but when you are in a group you are heard easily." The Khulumani Support Group will live on long after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Sylvia Dlomo-Jele is survived by her son Maxwell "Vicky" Dlomo and her supportive husband, Wilson Mthumzi Jele, two sisters and five grandchildren.

Her funeral will be on Saturday at 9h00 at St Matthew's Anglican Church in Emndeni South, Soweto. She will be buried at the Avalon Cemetery.

Published by Maggie Friedman and Brandon Hamber, The Sowetan, 18 March 1999.

Maggie Friedman is from the Khulumani Support Group and Brandon Hamber is from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Hamber, B. (1999). Have no doubt it is fear in the land: An exploration of the continuing cycles of violence in South Africa. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, Jg. 7, Nr. 1+2, pp. 113-128 [Download]