Politicians should spare us the photo-op sympathy shows and admit guilt for rampant violent crime

During the 1980s when Britain experienced an unusually high number of train and ferry disasters, prime minister Margaret Thatcher would often be seen, wielding her trademark handbag with TV cameras in tow, boundlessly walking hospital wards visiting groggy survivors. A running gag at the time was that people were too scared of being involved in an accident lest they get a visit from the Iron Lady.

Visiting survivors of crime or their families is becoming fashionable with our politicians. Thatcher was at least responding to accidents. Rampant crime is a consequence of the incompetence of the state. The basic responsibility of the state, its raison d’être, is the security or protection of its citizens. The state has all the legal powers, including instruments of violence, to carry out such a mandate. But the South African state has continuously failed its people.

One cannot remember a time in this country when crime was either at a manageable level or was not the biggest concern for its people. It is a more pressing issue than, say, unemployment, which is very high. Those leaving the country rarely cite the lack of jobs or greener pastures as reasons. Violent crime is by far the biggest reason for those emigrating.

It’s no exaggeration to say SA has become a major crime scene. The government is failing its people. But for some reason it doesn’t seem to get sufficiently blamed for its numerous failures, be it the faltering economy, lack of jobs or the rampant crime rate. Like all governments, it laps up any semblance of success, but would run a mile from its disasters. And the public, whether it’s the result of years of living under an unaccountable and oppressive government or just sheer ignorance, does not readily lay the blame at the door of the state. Instead, people are often too willing to acknowledge or be thankful for small gestures. And of course they’ve repeatedly voted it back into power despite its incompetence.

Government ministers, even the president himself, are now making it a habit of visiting high-profile victims of crime or their families. But the reason people are slaughtered, often in the most brutal fashion imaginable, is because of the failure of the government that Cyril Ramaphosa leads. They are let down by the system.

After a blaze of publicity about the gruesome murder, the president will visit the family with a retinue of hangers-on, often local politicians who also want in on the act. They will all be in a solemn mood as befits the situation. The family will then be required to relate to the president — as if he didn’t know already — all the gruesome details of how their loved one met their maker — the president vigorously nodding all the time as if to say “I feel your pain”. Then everybody, including the family or whoever happens to be the chief mourner, will line up to take the picture. Sometimes one gets the sense that’s the point of the visit. They’ve turned up for a photo-op. The bereaved family are mere hostages. The politicians are making hay on their suffering, and profiting from their own failures. Instead of being given an audience, politicians should be chased away.

Sometimes if the mood allows, politicians may offer the bereaved a semi-official funeral, which, to a poor family, could be a godsend. The state thus comes across as generous. But of course they can afford to be charitable. That’s not their money they’re giving away. And sometimes the offer has nothing to do with the social or financial status of the bereaved family. It’s at the behest of whoever happens to be in charge. It may come across as a generous gesture, but a semi-official funeral often has political and financial benefits for politicians. They get to dictate the agenda and hog the limelight at the funeral. They also appoint the event organiser/s and palms often get greased.

But is it necessary for the president or his ministers to be visiting bereaved families? What purpose does it serve, except to portray the politician as kind and caring? The last thing people going through such trauma need is strangers picking on their wounds. They should be left alone to mourn in private. It’s even more distasteful when politicians use such visits to polish their own public image. Also, how sustainable are such presidential visits? According to recent figures, on average about 57 people are killed in SA every day. How many of those can expect to be honoured with a presidential visit? Or does he go where he expects to get more political mileage?

These visits are mere political stunts. They serve no purpose. Politicians should stay clear from cases that are yet to be mediated in court. What would be useful, though, would be for the president to stay at his desk and do his job. Which means holding the minister of police and his colleagues accountable for the rampant crime in the country.

They should either reduce the crime rate, or be fired. People are sick and tired of being hunted like animals even in their own homes.

In fact, were the government to do its job properly, there would be little need, if any, for the president to take the trouble of visiting bereaved families. There’d be fewer murders.

What’s more, he may even get some political mileage from it, just doing his job. Sort out the crime rate — or bring it down — and there would be no need to play consoler-in-chief.