We, South Africans, are tired of being told that although crime is a "problem", it is nonetheless "being addressed", is "under control", or is "stabilising".

We are tired of hearing that yet another "task team" has been appointed and that yet another crime "plan" or "strategy" has been adopted.

We are tired of the frequent sound-bites prepared by spin doctors more concerned with today’s headlines than today’s arrests.

What we want is an acknowledgement that we are facing a crisis. We want an acknowledgement that government is sufficiently convinced that it is prepared to do everything necessary to protect the innocent and vulnerable from the rein of terror imposed on them by legions of brigands and thugs. We want reassurance that someone is in control and that something is being done.

But government is consistently reluctant to acknowledge this reality, preferring instead to proclaim that levels of violent crime have "stabilised". It has indeed stabilised, but at such outrageously high levels that the very stability of our society is threatened.

What government is willing to tell you is that South Africa has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world. This is wonderful for those of us who respect it, but is not much use to anyone having to fight gangsters.

The fight against crime requires a criminal justice system - police, prosecutors, courts, prisons - which must be efficient and effective.

An efficient criminal justice system must be predicated on training, adequate resources, proper co-ordination of the various segments of the system and the right modern technology. For example, we still use manual systems to identify fingerprints - a disgrace for any modern government.

An IFP government will introduce a programme to reduce crime by twenty five percent in the first year of government.

The root causes of the crime wave facing us are complex and varied. They include the twin legacies of apartheid and the campaign of ungovernability directed against apartheid, often dire levels of poverty, a lack of economic opportunity, and a lack of respect for the rights and lives of others.

The legacy of these debilitating issues cannot be addressed with quick-fix solutions. They require a sophisticated response and a long term vision. In particular, it is important that government institutes programmes and policies which address:

Government has had mixed results to date in dealing with these challenges. Its scorecard is better in respect of income redistribution and opportunity than it is with regard to jobs and ubuntu/botho. But unless it deals with the latter two issues, crime, and violent crime in particular, is not likely to abate.

The battle against crime cannot be won unless there is an IFP government in place which will become the promoter of a wide-spread culture of social discipline, law, order, respect for authority and respect for values.

Every opportunity should be taken to minimise the likelihood of offenders repeating their crimes and being incarcerated in prison on a more or less permanent basis.

Rehabilitation is thus crucial in assisting prisoners to make a life for themselves after their release, and must not be ignored for fear of exacerbating rather than alleviating our crowded prisons.

It should be stressed that notwithstanding an increasing desire on the part of many people for retribution, this should not be at the expense of rehabilitation.

We believe government should implement programmes dealing with:

Whether desirable or not, retribution is a powerful motivation force among the body politic, and there is much concern not merely that justice is done, but that it is seen to be done. Amongst other things, this entails that government be seen to be tough on crime. People expect criminals to be given the appropriate punishment for the crime committed.

We are committed to the following:

The IFP strongly contends that the current use of the SANDF in a policing role is highly undesirable for the following reasons:

Their deployment is fraught with legal problems relating to the constitutionality of using for policing purposes an agency of the state whose primary function is territorial defence against external aggression. This is compounded by the inappropriate nature of training and deployment doctrine and the kind of equipment used.

These operational and other problems are compounded by the relative costliness of such deployment given the erosion of core capabilities synonymous with utilisation in an extremely costly secondary function.

The deployment of soldiers in this capacity is therefore at best an emergency measure to deal with current shortfalls in manpower and equipment and the IFP believes that a re-assessment of the allocation of fiscal and other resources needs to be undertaken with the possible redeployment of resources to the SAPS.

Safety and Security needs to be driven by considerations of efficacy and should be service orientated. To ensure that this happens it is important that policing functions be preformed at the lowest level of government at which capacity exists or can be created to ensure that it is community orientated and responsive to conditions of diversity which exist in communities.

At the heart of IFP policies is a commitment to the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity and the inherent belief that responsibility for the execution of national policies should always reside at the most appropriate level. Considerations of national standards, legal requirements and sound management should be the focus of the national government and not day- to-day crime prevention.

The integrated multi-agency response to crime which stresses socio-economic reconstruction and development and the key role which government at these levels plays in actual service delivery, make it essential that real capacity be developed at these levels.

Policing cannot be separated from the overall policies and development strategies of provincial Governments and the expertise and other specialised capacity which exist at this level needs to be harnessed. This cannot happen unless the issues relating to the devolution of powers are adequately resolved.

Partnerships in policing necessitate devolved budgetary and policy formulation capacity as well as real oversight powers to ensure efficient resource allocation and sensitivity to prevailing conditions in different provinces, regions and areas.

The vexed issue of police unions and the disruption of essential policing services during labour disputes need to be addressed.

The IFP has long advocated an independent Security Forces Service Commission which will deal with the service conditions of all the state security agencies.

This special commission would enable a unique and special dispensation to be granted to members of these services, including the SAPS with regard to salaries, benefits, service conditions and all other aspects of their employment in exchange for relinquishing some of their constitutional rights to labour action and protest.

The IFP views the Government’s policy on local government’s role in policing as essentially "eurocentric" and with a total bias towards urban communities which ignores the objective realities of our current situation.

For example in choosing to focus exclusively on former white municipalities the ANC has ignored the other forms of local government structures prevalent in KwaZulu-Natal which service approximately fifty percent of the population of the province.

The IFP believes strongly that Safety and Security policy should address the important role which Traditional Authorities, indigenous law and Tribal Constables play in the maintenance of safety and security in traditional communities.

These institutions of society are also valuable resources to the central Government if accorded the status which they deserve. These resources need to be effectively harnessed by the state.

The IFP advocates the empowerment of tribal policing through training, education, equipment and clearly defined responsibilities in line with existing legislation dealing with their role and function.

The ANC has decided to dump Community Policing Forums and has put in place policy which means that they will be replaced in time by structures set up by local government. The IFP strongly rejects this view which it believes is evidence of an ideological undercurrent in ANC thinking which seeks to create hegemonic structures which ignore the plurality of our society.

The existing concept of CPFs is such that it brings a wide range of institutions of civil society and other sectors of the community together with other societal role players both inside and outside of the state with political formations. This important diversity is critical in building relationships between the police and other sectors of society such as business and special interest groups.

The effective result of the proposed structures would be to "politicise" this area and undermine whatever legitimacy it has derived at community level.

Safety and Security policy needs to become more orientated around the actual role which local government can play in partnership with provincial Governments in the management of crime prevention and other policing initiatives.

The IFP is strongly committed to the extension of Municipal Police Forces as important and valuable partners in crime prevention. The Durban Metropolitan Police is a particularly good example of this and is evidence of the role which these forces can play in bringing down crime. As local governments build capacity and enter into meaningful relationships with the business sector, these forces will become more important and the IFP would like to see more thought going into policy in this regard.