Academic Mary de Haas of UKZN has long studied the prevalence of violence and its intersectionalities in Natal. She examines the complex relationships between violence and other social, political, and economic factors within the provincial context. The Moerane Commission later confirmed that Glebelands, townships, municipalities and taxi ranks are killing fields. Although the Moerane Report has been widely criticised for not being implemented effectively, it remains crucial for understanding the root causes of political violence in the province.

Many reports and studies have long provided evidence linking South Africa’s stark economic inequality to the high levels of crime in the country. Decades of apartheid and its legacy have resulted in a deeply divided society, with a disproportionate concentration of wealth and opportunity in the hands of a white minority. This has led to the marginalisation of black South Africans, particularly those residing in townships and rural areas. While this reality is known, many people have given multiple explanations to confirm, dismiss, or misinterpret the challenge of crime in South Africa.

One controversial, bifurcated and ahistorical explanation of this topic is from the head of KZN SAPS, General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. He recently explained that the province, and by implication the country, has a serious problem: “a black man.” His interpretation of statistics showed that almost all the perpetrators of crimes in areas like eThekwini and uMgungundlovu were black. Mkhwanazi stated that thousands of young black men aged 16 to 25 have had encounters with the law over five years.

Shouldn’t this be obvious in a country that is at least 90% black, from the tough Cape Flats to sweltering farms in Musina? Shouldn’t it always be anticipated in a country where the black population is only a numerical majority but a minority in all spheres of human endeavour: economy, social structures, language, and knowledge ownership? It would be interesting to read the faces of the Indian population after hearing from their police generals that India had an ‘Indian problem’.

This article enters the fray in condemning Mkhwanazi’s formulation that a predominantly black country like South Africa has a black man problem. The police commissioner has also been previously quoted saying, “We cannot fight criminals by negotiating with them,” justifying the shoot-to-kill mantra under his leadership. The article takes detailed historical, contextual and non-hostile perspectives on crime and their implications as a lesson for democratic South Africa.

• The ‘Native Question’ in colonial South Africa

The British colonial authorities in Natal and the Cape were always concerned with the ‘Native Question’, a euphemism for the challenges posed by the indigenous African population. The Native Question, or the black men problem, was fundamentally about control, exploitation of resources and the maintenance of colonial power. Moreover, the colonial view of the ‘native’ was often one of inherent inferiority, a perspective that justified their domination.

Whites believed their culture and race and culture made them superior to the indigenous people, and, therefore, they had a duty to build a bulwark for European civilisation in Africa. Whites feared a politically empowered black majority would undo their supposedly ‘advanced’ European civilisation. Thus, historians must study the relationship between violence and hegemony and how struggle and ‘loyalty’ coexist.

Since the early days, white South African perspectives on the ‘native question’ were diverse. Liberal whites, self-styled as Friends of the Natives, aimed to assimilate Africans into European culture through education and social upliftment, advocating gradual political rights until they could lead the country.

This fostered alliances with amazemtiti in institutions like the ANC and SACP. Among them, communist whites viewed the native question as an opportunity for a two-stage political liberation: overthrowing white domination and then capitalist hegemony.

Conversely, Afrikaner nationalists and apartheid engineers saw racial segregation as vital for cultural preservation, believing God placed Europeans in Africa to boss the Africans – ‘baaskap’. Apartheid government policies, such as forced removals and the Bantustan system, mirrored eugenic goals of racial purity and control. This flawed intellectual framework underlay apartheid’s oppressive policies, shaping its laws, practices and overall ideology.

Nevertheless, this eugenic-based white supremacism has produced an unequal and violent South African society that now unjustly blames a black man for the failures of eugenics, attributing any societal problem to him. Unfortunately, the post-apartheid era has neither been able to lift the weight a black man carries on his shoulders nor shown a serious commitment to doing so.

The discourse, is now sophisticated and framed as “ethnic mobilisation,” fails to address the root causes of social, political, and economic crises that frequently erupt, such as natural disasters in the Anthropocene climate. Crime is no exception to the social strife facing black communities. Many people do not understand this because hunger may not hijack a car!

• A replay of the ‘Native Question’ in KZN – ‘Shoot to kill’

Mkhwanazi expediently played in spaces largely dominated by eugenics and neo-Malthusians, who believe the ‘swart gevaar’ phenomenon is real and deserves the harshest responses possible. The white fear of a black man was firmly established during the 19th and 20th centuries. Besides many wars to suppress dissent, whites also manufactured grand stories or “white panics” to justify their actions. The so called Natal’s Rape Scare of 1886 comes to mind of how public opinion was galvanised to unleash terror on black men.

On 20 November 1886, the Natal Advertiser warned that “[s]o much-smothered anger, as is currently kept under control, must find vent someday if the law does not avenge these atrocious crimes.” As part of the scaremongering, white women were conditioned that they were in imminent danger of being raped by black men. The colonial government responded “with alacrity” to this agitation by passing laws providing a system of ‘native’ registration in Natal and imposing capital punishment for the crime of rape.

Jeremy C. Martens argues, “Natal settlers had long cherished the ideal of a comprehensive system for the registration of urban Africans,” a model later expanded upon by apartheid authorities. This legislative legacy includes measures like Law 15 of 1869, which empowered Natal’s urban authorities to enforce a night curfew for blacks and to apprehend ‘idle, disorderly, or suspicious’ persons. This law was later amended in 1888 to authorise Durban and Pietermaritzburg (awkwardly today’s EThekwini and Mgungundlovu) to “establish a system of registration for Natives, or persons belonging to uncivilised races, residing or employed within their respective Boroughs.”

This means that Mkhwanazi unintentionally prolongs the long string of unfounded panics that single out a black man as a source of discomfort for the ruling elites.

Any ‘uncivilised’ individual violating municipal by-laws under the 1888 Legislative Council Law faced arrest and up to 24 hours of imprisonment before trial. Conviction resulted in fines or imprisonment. The law also mandated the registration of contracts between employers and servants. To put this measure in its rightful context, this law was a watered-down version after the UK’s Secretary of State for the Colonies had disallowed a provision that imposed the death penalty on every black person ‘convicted of the crime of rape on the body of any white female’.

Stereotyped as heartless rapists, social errors, dangerous and irredeemably corrupt, the black man is perpetually demonised in the ‘new’ South Africa. Initiatives like the Zondo Commission and the removal of Justice John Hlophe from the bench have merely reframed this negative narrative to fit contemporary concerns. Comments such as “KZN will not be thrown to the dogs” carry deeper implications that must be understood. Consequently, Mkhwanazi’s remarks exacerbate existing wounds, whether intentionally or not.

• About the structuration of crime

The issue Mkhwanazi attempted to address with handcuffs is highly complex and should not be left to constables alone. It requires expertise from sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, criminologists, economists and others. To assist Mkhwanazi and others who are not well-versed in how crime and social structure are interlinked, it is necessary to take them to a classroom and discuss the theorisation of this subject to educate them on the seriousness of the problem South Africa faces.

Ordinarily, the departure point of a discussion of this nature is the field of criminal sociology, particularly Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory. This theory offers a unique lens for examining the complex relationship between individuals and society. It posits that social structures are the product of human agency and the medium through which it operates. This dynamic interplay between structure and agency provides a rich framework for understanding criminal behaviour.

Regarding the structuration of crime, Mkhwanazi’s focus on petty and violent crimes, such as murder, rape and theft, reflects the offenders’ socio-economic backgrounds and skill levels. Why is violent crime prevalent in certain societal segments and not in others? This is because the offenders often lack other skills and knowledge that criminals of other racial groups commit.

If the problematic black man had skills like accountants Markus Jooste (Steinhoff), Lindelani Bert Gumede (TERS) and Jonathan Blow (Superspar), they would commit crimes such as embezzlement and stealing millions. It would be irrational for someone with the ability to steal large sums discreetly to instead engage in street-level violence. Thus, Mkhwanazi should have considered these factors before going public about a black man being a problem.

Giddens’ theory of structuration explores whether individuals or social forces shape our social reality. He rejects extreme views, arguing that although individuals are not entirely free to choose their actions and have limited knowledge, they still act as agents who reproduce social structures and drive social change. In our primitive South African society, where opportunities and skills are unevenly distributed, crime, particularly violent crime, often results from systemic disadvantages.

Furthermore, contrasting the so-called violent crimes in South Africa with other types reveals that crime types are shaped by circumstance, not genetics. Mkhwanazi’s view, which links criminality to genetic factors, reflects Darwinism, as it invokes outdated and discredited theories of racial hierarchy and biological determinism. Darwinism unjustly pathologises black men, framing them as inherently predisposed to criminality and dysfunction. This purposely ignores the socio-economic and historical contexts that contribute to their struggles.

• Colonialism didn’t die but is reforming

Finally, many proponents of the shoot-to-kill approach mistakenly assume, firstly, that all individuals killed by the police were undeniably dangerous criminals, as law enforcement often claims. Secondly, they assume that this alone justifies the use of lethal force, even without a fair trial and subsequent conviction. Mexico’s experience under Vicente Calderón, where a violent approach exacerbated the problem, stands in contrast to the strategies of New York and Italy, which prioritised development and addressing inequality to reduce crime rates.

Natal’s origins are rooted in colonial approaches that characterised black men as a problem. Christopher Saunders argues that “Britishness was most intense in Natal,” sometimes called ‘the last outpost of the British Empire’. This British rule left a stench. Mkhwanazi’s ‘shoot to kill’ tactic resonates with the unlimited powers that the 1910 colonial constitution awarded to the administrator of Natal, whose duty was to contain the native problem. This was after notable black men Langalibalele of AmaHlubi, Cetshwayo of AmaZulu and Bhambatha of the Zondi had stood up against English rule.

It appears that the underlying issue of viewing natives as problematic now manifests in a different form, where it is still deemed justifiable to shoot and kill a black man because he is seen as a problem that must be exterminated.

Siya yi banga le economy!

Siyabonga Hadebe is a PhD candidate in international economic law and a labour market expert based in Geneva.