South African democracy: the beginning of the end?

An instinctive response to  the killing of 34 strikers by the police on August 16 is that the event may herald  the end of state tolerance of dissent. Along with the 34 the assumption that state violence will not be lightly used to suppress opposition died.  Although much public debate on the reasons for the incident followed  the incident these discourses centered on explanations for the miners militancy or rationales for the polices' violence. The first perspective tended  to "justify"  the  strikers actions in terms of their personal circumstances or on rivalry between competing trade unions.

The miserable social conditions that allegedly underpins the strikers militancy broadly reflects what happens in areas where the local economy is collapsing. Declining service levels, increasing unemployment, income supplementation through prostitution, illicit brewing, alcohol sales, crime etc. now typify the areas surrounding many platinum mines like Lonmin.  These difficult circumstances contribute to miners militancy and to the ability of a upstart union to organise industrial action under the nose of a trade union that has long dominated the industry. The arguments that focus on the impact of social conditions are undermined by the clear focus the miners had on remuneration and by the fact that the strikers are probably better paid than those who shot them. 

While the social conditions may have contributed to discrediting the established National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) they do not offer insight into why the police played a central role in the rivalry.

Although NUM has long been established as the main union representing underground workers at Lonmin the strikes were organized by a fledgling rival AMCU. Clearly the dominance of the ANC-aligned National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was challenged by the strike and some pundits viewed the  heavy-handed police action as state support for their embattled political ally.

Much public debate focused on the militancy of the miners and the threat they posed to the police and other miners. It is repeatedly pointed out that by the time the strikers stormed off the hillock on which they had gathered ten people (including two police officers) had already been murdered in the conflict. It is from his vantage point that most discussions around the appropriateness of the police response proceeds. This discourse then revolved around assessments of the threat posed by the strikers, the ability of the police to protect themselves and others  etc.

 However a central ingredient is missed in all these debates. By the time the strikers were driven from the hillock by police teargas the order to use lethal force (sharp ammunition)  had already been issued. When the strikers stormed off the hillock towards  the police the SAPS had already  dispensed with crowd control control formations  and non-lethal gear. The police has already demobilised the public-order police units in favour of deploying the elite National Intervention Unit (NIU). The NIU is a unit tasked with dealing with high risk conflict situations. The shields, dogs, batons, perimeter control mechanisms that are central to containing violent situations had been withdrawn in favour of a large, highly trained force armed only with lethal weapons.

Furthermore the police were deployed in a pattern that ensured that the strikers could not but run towards them if they were to escape the teargas lobbed at them. When they stormed off the hillock they strikers could not do anything but run towards the police who, in turn, we're unable to respond with anything other than their automatic weapons primed with sharp rounds.  And fire the police did - until all the strikers were down. The strikers were not given an opportunity to surrender or escape.

In other words points about police preparedness, their level of training, the threat the strikers posed etc. are moot - the die had been cast before the first volleys of teargas were lobbed at the hill.

Authority to use sharps rounds can only be issued by the ranking SAPS officer - in this situation this was the recently appointed commissioner Phiyega. The resultant massacre would, on the face of it, support  calls for police commissioners to be appointed from within police ranks. Perhaps a commissioner more familiar with crowd control and the volatile situations may have prevented the biggest mass ace in South Africa since Sharpeville. By intimation it was the commissioners inexperience that caused the massacre. However this perspective is undermined by the explanations that followed the incident. The day's events were followed by a sanctimonious blathering about the danger the strikers posed to others and how they were belligerent and superstitious they were. The subtext of these explanations was that the strikers got what they deserved. The fact that there were no police casualties on the day of the  massacre suggests that the magnitude of the threat posed by the strikers was probably exaggerated.

However an explanation is still needed as to why the NIU had been deployed and the non-lethal measures withdrawn. Was this, for example, an attempt to neutralise a militant rival to the established union? Such explanations miss a key dimension to the conflict - the close alignment between Lonmin and the upper echelons of the ruling party. For example in its former guise as "Lonrho", Lonmin reputedly bankrolled several of the leading ANC families both while they were in exile and on their return to South Africa in the mid 1990s.  Currently ANC heavyweight Cryril Ramaphosa is a (non-executive) director of Lonmin. It was also Lonmin that stood to benefit most from the ending of the strike. The platinum sector is going through a crisis with falling PGM prices, greatly reduced demand for their product as well as rapidly increasing costs structure. Of particular importance is the cost of electricity used by the mines and associated processors. These factors ensure that not only could the mine not accede to the strikers demands they could not afford to cover running costs while a small component of the total workforce  halted production.  Only about ten percent of the Lonmin workforce joined the strike yet those 3 000 rock-drillers were able to stop production.

Clearly Lonmin stood to benefit most from the collapse of the strike than anybody.  The events of the day represent nothing more sophisticated than the state acting in the interests of big capital and the ruling party. Unless the commission of inquiry is able to provide a more convincing account as to why non-lethal force was withdrawn we really do need to ask whether or not this is the end of the tolerance of dissent required of a functioning democracy.