Corruption and the South African Police

The literature on corruption in countries in the course of transition is likely to escalate in the light of changes in Eastern Europe (Holmes 1997, Varese 1997). The ‘end of empire’ is associated with the breakdown in the rule of law. Through a variety of subterfuges, both individuals and corporate bodies seek to ensure their own survival, within the matrix of the collapse of legal order. In South Africa, similar transformations, as epitomised by the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, have provided a window of opportunity to unveil the mechanisms which maintained that apartheid regime for nearly half a century. Understanding that complex practice of state deviance entails recognising the different levels of state power and malpractice in that country. This article flows directly from the Foucauldian notion of the decentralisation of power in modern society. Power in the authoritarian state is not just a function of a clearly-defined state apparatus. Rather that locus co-exists with various sub-foci at lower levels of state and civil society, in which local interactions and power relations, contribute to the totality of control. Apartheid survived for many years not because it signified an authoritarian centralised state but because it could rely on individuals and agencies at lower strata of power to contribute their own efforts to sustaining that abnormal structure. Deviance by state personnel at different levels – to which the Nelson's eye was turned – was critical to the maintenance of white hegemony. The article focuses directly on one such nexus – the extent to which different interests – financial, organisational, and a commitment to racial hegemony – cooperated in a seamless web to ensure that the white rule was paramount in micro-level decision-making structures. Micro-level influences on police training and of police promotions – deviant by any conventional yardstick-served both state and individual interests.