A reaction to:
Roche, D., 2002. Restorative Justice and the Regulatory State in South African Townships. British Journal of Criminology, Volume 42, pp. 514-533. Froestad, J. & Shearing, C., 2007. Conflict resolution in South Africa: a Case Study. In: G. Johnstone & D. Van Ness, eds. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 534-556. Brodeur, J.-P. & Shearing, C., 2005. Configuring Security and Justice. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), pp. 379-406. Introduction The three articles discuss the use of peace committees in South African townships as a form of non-state policing. The peace committees are thus responsible for providing security and justice to the community. The peace committees focus on problem-solving and conflict-resolution at the grassroots level. The peace committees can be seen as an inside-out, bottom-up approach to conflict resolution. Policing in this regard takes place through the governances of peace. Peace committees exist in the sphere of Restorative Justice. It can be used as a great tool to rebuild and shape the flow of peace and conflict within in the community. The three articles argue various strengths and weaknesses of the peace committees; their approach and real world application. This review will focus on Policing through peace governance as its main theme. The review will first discuss the backdrop of Restorative Justice, the discussions will then lead to the three main premises to arguing peace governance. The three main premises are Regulating of Peacemaking, Peace-making in private spaces and finally power to the peace. Defining the backdrop of restorative Justice The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (2006) argues that Restorative Justice can be used to alleviate the pressure on the criminal justice system, by creating alternatives to incarceration. Restorative Justices highlights a global shift away from punitive justice. Restorative justice places focus on fixing harms, healing and rebuilding communities (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2011). Froestad and Sheering (2007, p. 534) defined restorative justice against what it does not include. The principles of restorative justice push away from retributive/punitive justice that address crime (harm) with punishment (harm). Restorative Justice seeks to find other means to balance out harm. It assumes a wrong has been committed, that an offender and a victim exist but it acknowledges that these terms are fluid in communities. The history of restorative justice in South African has two distinct roots, one western approach and one traditional African approach. As formal approach restorative justice is fairly new with roots in the 80’s and the rise of VictimOffender Mediation in the 90’s (Batley & Skelton, 2006). Batley and Skelton (2006, p. 19) argues that the traditional justice system in South Africa, which predates colonisation, emanates the principles of modern day restorative justice. There are many commonalities between modern restorative justice and the African indigenous justice system (Batley & Skelton, 2006, p. 8) Ann Skelton explains that both perspectives aim for reconciliation between the involved parties, the restoration of peace and harmony within the community. The perspectives encourage a process that places emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of these parties. There is a strong agreement that all processes should stress the importance of respect and dignity to everyone involved (Batley & Skelton, 2006). Peace-committees in South Africa can thus be seen as both a traditional answer to a modern problem, and modern articulations of a traditional approach. It could be argued that peace committees are non-state governance tool, that could be used to police rural communities. The Zvelethemba model, reflect the private spaces these committees move in, the broadcasting of power throughout the community itself, and the governance of peace. The regulating of Peace-making Brodeur and Shearing (2005, p. 380) argued that even with the rise of private policing there was still a great need to look at new ways of dealing with security and policing. This new ‘way’ should be able to find synergy between security and justice. The development of the Zvelethemba model was one way of addressing this need for synergy. The Zvelethemba model is a uniquely African way of problem-solving and peace-making. The model taps into local and intrinsic knowledge embedded in the community. The peace committee members, the disputants and community members come together to contribute to the discussions. Who will sit and discuss the matter at hand and seek an appropriate response? It is important then to ask who regulates the committee members? Who or what ensures that the committee members actively seek peace, and do not incite violence? With the establishment of the Peace committee a code of conduct (Code of Good Practices) was drafted to ensure that although individual knowledge is used, unity and togetherness is promoted. The code acts as an internal policing tool that guides the facilitators on what to promote, what to restrict and on what is prohibited (Froestad & Shearing, 2007). Roche (2002, p. 519) noted that the code of good practice forms a vital part of the authority and leadership needed for a successful Peace committee to function. Odendaal (2010, p. 12) reflected on the conduct of Peace Committee members focussing on what they can and cannot do. These points of conduct emphases the importance of peacemaking, communication, negotiations, joint problem-solving, reconciliation, avoidance of violence or coercion, seek local peace-making solutions for a local agreement of peace. The code of Good Practices reflects the same restorative: Failure to follow the said regulatory framework will result in the committee member’s licence be removed or not renew (Roche, 2002, p. 519). The Code of Good Practice ensures that peace-making leads to peace-building and community building. The three articles greatly express the ‘grey’ area that the model functions in. It is a non-state peace-building body that is separate from the state in its functioning but delivers a service that is traditionally the responsibility of the State. These peace committees are formed in private space, that are governed by the need of the community. Peace-making in private spaces Traditional justice seeks the state’s involvement and control over the public punishment. It aims to ensure that ‘it alone’ has the proverbial ‘big stick’. Batley Skelton (2006) noted that South Africa has its own variation of restorative justice which it situated in a non-state justice space. Due to many reasons the state is not always to provide access to justice. In rural communities what is desired justice is not per se the outcome of the criminal justice system. The three articles agree that the Zvelethemba model provides justice and security to communities which they may not have had access to. The traditional ‘state justice’ and policing add problems to the space of communities, especially rural communities, and may even hinder community building.
“The most fundamental aspects in making peace are the decision to do so and possessing the will to embark on that road. To deprive local participants of this right removes their power and weakens the quality of their commitment to peace. If local participants refuse to form an LPC, it means a distinct local conflict system exists; it has to be engaged on its own merits and requires its own specific peace-making process (Odendaal, 2010).” All three articles express the notion that it is impossible to remove an individual from his community s/he comes from, in the same way that a dispute cannot be divorced from the community in which it occurred. Restoration and interventions should thus come from the community, designed to address the community’s issues and concerns and should have a local expression. Roche (Roche, 2002) mentioned that peace committees deal with a wide variety of disputes some of which are illegal, and some are civil matters. Not all conflict that is managed by the Peace Committees are illegal (e.g. adultery, noise disturbance, or name calling) but nevertheless these cases may lead to violence if they are not dealt with. The private space in which the peace committees are situated allows local access points to justice – which may have been restricted previously. The public [community] ownership of the dispute, discussions, decision making and finally the intervention allows that power is constituted through the collective efforts. Power to the Peace [community] History of South Africa and the political make-up of the past has created complex power dynamics and controls within townships. The lack of state responses to township violence has left gaps for many groups to move in. The now armed groups and gangs have become increasingly violent. The vigilante mobs and taxi gangs began to fight over control and dominance of townships (Roche, 2002). The continuous power struggle has left the communities ‘broken, wounded and unable fix themselves’. The concern raised is who takes responsibility for the power? In most communities, those who have power do not carry the responsibility, state impunity offers little enforcement in townships. The Zvelethemba model offers a change in the powers in the community. The emphases the use of local, intrinsic knowledge, involvement and cooperations in the community makes everyone involved actively responsible for the outcome. Peace committees provide a form of informal justice to the community while creating peace – the process provides a situation-specific response to disputes. The symbolic power given to formal state bodies to provide [absolute] justice, security and control have now been reverted to the community. Odendaal (2010) argued that peace committees are unable to change state impunity, but peace committees are fundamental in balancing out power between communities and those forces in power. The strength and the success of peace committees are directly linked to local involvement. The state’s power to enforce laws and enact policies does not equate to the actual establishment of Peace committees without the community buying into the concept (Odendaal, 2010). With the focus on nonviolent, noncoercive, peaceful deliberation and collaborative problem-solving one would argue that the peace committees have no means to affect power dynamics in a community. This is not the case. Peace committees, in essence, can act as a self-sustaining machine that requires no direct state involvement to provide restorative justice and conflict resolution. Conclusion In conclusion, the three articles express the importance of local peace committees to address conflict, violence and various disputes in the community. Peace committees’ intersectionality allows it to address complex social, political and structural issues related to the community – without the involvement of state bodies. The articles give rise to peace governance as a tool to police townships and communities. Policing in this regards is directly linked to the regulations of peacemakers, the private space in which peace is sought out, and finally the balancing and redistribution of power in the community. The Peace Committee meetings mimic the culture of Ubuntu, with an emphasis on a polycentric view of community, humanity and connectivity. The three articles suggest clearly that peace committees are an African response to a modern crisis of security, justice and Policing. References Batley, M. & Skelton, A., 2006. Charting progress, mapping the future. In: M. Batley & A. Skelton, eds. The History of Restorative Justice in South Africa. Pretoria: Restorative Justice Centre, pp. 19-27. Brodeur, J.-P. & Shearing, C., 2005. Configuring Security and Justice. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), pp. 379-406. Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2011. Restorative Justice: The Road to Healing, Pretoria: Chief Directorate: Promotion of the Rights of Vulnerable Groups. Froestad, J. & Shearing, C., 2007. Conflict resolution in South Africa: a Case Study. In: G. Johnstone & D. Van Ness, eds. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 534-556. Odendaal, A., 2010. An Architecture for Building Peace at the Local Level: A Comparative Study of Local Peace Committees. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Roche, D., 2002. Restorative Justice and the Regulatory State in South African Townships. British Journal of Criminology, Volume 42, pp. 514-533. UNODC, 2006. Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. New York: United Nations Publications.
0 Comments
|
AuthorArchives
February 2018
CategoriesDisclaimer:
|