Violent crime is an emotive subject in South Africa. Virtually no South African is left untouched by it, one way or another, some more intimately than others. Traditional media’s periodically intense focus on some acts of criminality than on others does tend to raise blood pressure and harden arteries, also periodically. Sadly, and perhaps inadvertently, the periodic outrage that this engenders tends to be misdirected.

Take the recent spate of women murders in Gauteng for example.

Framing these murders as “femicide” (which means the murder of women and girls because of their gender), the common thread running through the media commentary that I have read and heard is that all men must take responsibility for the murders of women and girls. It is demanded that all men must play a much greater part in preventing violence against women and girls.  Why? Well, it is said, because it is men who murder women and girls. So, it is the responsibility of all men to prevent it.

“Where are the men?”, asks a radio personality following the discovery of yet another body of a woman apparently murdered in Gauteng in a spate of what is generally suspected to be the work of a serial killer or more. The police are apparently still investigating. “Men are killing us”, says another on social media platforms.

A friend of mine also took to the ether and wrote: “If men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against women, men must become a much greater part of preventing it” thereby imposing the burden of responsibility on all men to prevent violent crime against women.

***

Like many South Africans, I have an opinion on these matters and I shall express it. It is a view that is not shared by many. I appreciate that. That is the beauty of a (supposedly) free society in a (supposed) democracy. People are entitled to express opinions. But the South African Constitution prohibits opinion that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, or incitement to cause harm. With this in mind, one wonders whether the assumption that women are murdered by men for being women does not have the effect of endangering men (incitement to cause harm or advocacy of hatred based on gender) in general on the basis of unproven assumption.

I express my view on the topic of this piece not for the self-indulgent sake of expressing it but because I notice a dangerous trend developing: that of characterising every murder of a woman as “femicide” and then burdening all men – by dint only of having been born male – with the obligation to prevent it.

The trouble with this burdening of all men with the obligation to prevent the murder of all women – a duty imposed by the characterisation of every murder of every woman as femicide – is that those with the legal and constitutional power to protect us all from violent crime (government) are given a free pass as we unconsciously employ “gender war” diction in the debate concerning violent crime in South Africa especially against women.

My opinion is confined only to this issue.

There are other related issues that are deserving of attention but which do not form part of my discussion here.  These include:

  • Dynamics around incidences of women being murdered by their intimate partners in their private spaces,
  • Dynamics around cultural norms and practices – real or imagined, and
  • Comparative study of how other constitutional democracies successfully deal with violent crime.

I am simply addressing the issue of burdening all men with the responsibility (not guilt) to prevent violent crime against all women on the basis that all such violent crime is motivated by the gender of the victim. I say this is a shallow and artificial perspective that has an unstable foundation as I discuss below.

My purpose is not to provide succour to men who abuse women or subject them to violent crime. If government fulfilled its end of the bargain based on the social compact that citizens have concluded with it in what is supposed to be a constitutional democracy, by making it unworthwhile to kill, there would be fewer murders and ultimately – and ideally – none.

***

In my view, the “femicide” framing of the recent spate of murders of women in South Africa is as incendiary and polarising as the burdening of all men with the obligation to prevent it is misdirected.

On the femicide front, I know of no credible study that has definitively concluded that the murder of all women in South Africa is exclusively or even overwhelmingly the work of men, or that women have been murdered by reason only of being female. As a friend of mine has pointed out to me when I asked her to review this piece before publication: “An overall homicide figure tells us the sex of the victims; it does not tell us who killed them, their relationship to the perpetrator, the circumstances of the killing, or the role played by gender and power”.

I don’t know why people commit murder. I don’t know why each woman or girl is murdered in South Africa. I imagine police investigation of each case holds the key to that detail. We hear in media reports that three persons (two of them allegedly women) have recently been arrested in connection with one or other of these murders. These cases have not yet been subjected to evidence in a criminal trial. So, what is the factual basis for concluding that these women were murdered by men by reason only of being women (femicide)?

The burdening of all men with responsibility to prevent the murder of women flows directly from the characterisation of these murders as femicide by men. The argument is that because it is men who are murdering women for being women, men must bear the responsibility to influence other men to desist from this conduct and hold each other accountable. But there appears to be no factual foundation for the premise that all murdered women in South Africa are murdered by men for being women (femicide). No credible study has been produced to that effect. No court judgment has been cited saying the recent spate of women murders in Gauteng is the work of men who murdered these women for being women. Absent the foundation for the premise, the demand for all men to take responsibility and hold each other accountable for these murders loses credibility.

I must not be misunderstood as saying men have no role to play in these matters. Far from it. I am in complete agreement with the friend I referenced earlier who says we must consider the need for men’s contribution in the fight against violent crime through the lens of Ubuntu. She says: “If we accept that ‘I am because we are,’ then collective identity cannot apply only when describing the injustices endured by Black men and disappear when examining the harm experienced by women. Ubuntu asks us to recognise that what we participate in, normalise or silently tolerate affects the lives of others. Collective belonging must entail some measure of collective accountability”. I accept that unquestioningly. What I challenge is the premise for that accountability: that men are murdering women because they are women. I have not seen evidence of that.

***

In my view, the responsibility for violent crime against women lies elsewhere. It lies firmly in the government. We let the government off too lightly when we accuse men as a gender group of not doing enough to prevent violent crime against women in this country. Yes it is the moral responsibility of us all (not just men) to be vigilant, report violent crime and help in whatever way we can within the law to reduce violent crime levels against women in the country by, among other things, confronting our deeply rooted assumptions about gender and inter-gender relations. But ultimately, prevention, policing, prosecution and deterrent punishment or rehabilitation is government’s responsibility.

Government signed up for this in a social compact with us when the various political parties stood for election and their officials were subsequently deployed in government following our voting for those political parties. By electing these people, we delegated our power over our safety and security to them. Not only that; we also pay them through our taxes to perform this function. When they fail us, this cannot be the responsibility of all men to bear.

This is not an argument of my invention. A fellow named John Locke articulated it in his seminal work titled Two Treatises of Government way back towards the end of the 17th Century (1689-1690). The fellow – a philosopher, meaning he thinks deeply about these things – argued (rightly) that the ultimate duty of a government is to protect the life, liberty and property of all citizens and that if it fails to do so it loses its fundamental basis or reason for existing.

It is therefore towards the government that our outrage for violent crime against women should be directed, not towards all men by dint only of being born male. That is polarising rather than uniting us against a common enemy: violent crime and criminals of all genders [sic].

As regards government’s constitutional duty to protect us all from violent crime in return for our delegating to it our power over our safety and security and our tacit agreement to be bound by the laws it passes on our behalf, my friend’s argument is this: “The people who constitute government, the police and the justice system do not emerge from outside society. They come from the same homes, communities and cultures in which gendered assumptions are formed. We cannot expect people produced by a culture to enter public office and transform that culture while the rest of society declines to participate in its transformation”.

Firstly, I am not advocating for men’s insouciance in matters of violent crime against women or abdicating to government our collective moral duty to play a positive role in the fight against violent crime. Again, my objection is the framing of the problem as femicide (the murder of women for being women) committed exclusively by men and from that concluding that all men have a responsibility to prevent the problem as framed. No evidence of that premise has been presented and so I cannot accept the premise.

Secondly, I cannot accept the argument that because people in government are the product of the same communities and cultures in which gendered assumptions are formed, they, like the rest of us, cannot be expected to operate outside their gendered assumptions.

The President, the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, members of the national assembly, permanent delegates to the national council of provinces, premiers, members of provincial legislatures and members of provincial executive councils all swear an Oath on assuming Office to obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other law of the Republic, while all Judges swear an Oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it.

The Constitution imposes an obligation on the police service (in section 205) “to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law”. That is government’s trade-off for assuming the power we confer on it to lord over us. Failure of government in the fulfilment of this object of the police service is a failure to fulfil its constitutional obligation to us. At the very least, it is a basis for the removal of the responsible cabinet minister/s from office. That he or she may be the product of the same communities and cultures in which gendered assumptions are formed is no defence. By virtue of the oath he or she has taken, he is and must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

***

An uncomfortable truth is that we as citizens are responsible for the power we confer on government. Government does not have a divine right to power. It has only the power we confer on it by our votes and by our tacit agreement to be bound by the laws it enacts on our behalf presumably for our benefit. When government defaults on its obligations towards us or abuses the power we have conferred on it, it is our responsibility to remove such a government and establish a new one to secure our safety and security.

Again, this is not an idea of my invention. John Locke propounded it in 1689.

The trouble is that the general approach of South Africans towards political parties in relation to socio-economic matters even affecting their own lives is generally that of football fans towards their football club or church congregation: we remain loyal to the club even when its performance on the playing field does not justify such loyalty, or to the pastor despite questionable conduct. At least in football fans often call for the head of the coach. But in matters of our safety and security we point an accusing finger at all men, tacitly absolving the failing government – whose constitutional duty it is to protect us all – to make speeches and embark on investigations that usually lead nowhere except daily media spectacle for a short while until the next incident worthy of a media headline.

Until South Africans stop treating political parties as football clubs of which they are fans, or pastors in a church to which they are loyal, government will continue abdicating its constitutional obligation and duty to protect citizens in the safe knowledge that the (misdirected) outrage will soon pass too.

The general body of men as a gender is not the problem in violent crime against women. I know of no evidence that women are murdered in South Africa exclusively by men for being women. Government specifically is the problem. It has the power and constitutional obligation to prevent, prosecute and punish violent crime. We should direct our outrage there and ultimately vote them out of government when they fail to protect us.

To abuse Nelson Mandela’s famous quote (himself quoting China’s Deng Xiaoping): whether the cat is black or white, if it does not catch mice, it is useless and we must get rid of it.

Stop paying fealty to party colours; pay fealty to effective and responsive government. Then maybe, just maybe, we may rid ourselves of the scourge that is the murder of women.

Mischaracterising the problem and then impose an obligation forged from that mischaracterisation on men is like following the map of Eswatini to navigate through the streets of Limpopo. We are bound not to reach our intended destination: a South Africa that is free of violent crime.

The End

***