Is security our best route to safety?: Questioning reliance on private security and technology in South Africa

South African CRIME QUARTERLY No. 74 | 2025 Is security our best route to safety? Questioning reliance on private security and technology in South Africa Dr Barbara Holtmann1 https://doi.org/10.17159/sacq.n74.22408 In this commentary, Barbara Holtmann draws from her experience with regard to urban safety, crime and violence prevention and community development. She examines the emphasis on private security, technology and securitisation in South Africa’s approach to crime and safety. She argues that despite significant and prolonged spending in this sector, feelings of safety – and actual safety – have not substantially improved. The piece highlights the need for a more balanced approach. It should integrate technological solutions with systemic development interventions responsive to deeper underlying causes of crime, such as inequality, exclusion, and social fragmentation. It advocates for a greater consideration of ‘safety’ interventions that foster well-being, social cohesion and inclusive urban environments. Distinguishing safety from security The English language distinguishes between security, which derives from the Latin secura, meaning without anxiety, and safety, which derives from the Latin salvus, meaning whole, safe and healthy. In South Africa, security is generally defined as protection against actual or perceived risks of attack, invasion, danger and fear. Safety describes a feeling of well-being, experiencing nurture and freedom. The distinction between these two terms describes the contemporary global political and philosophical divide SA CRIME QUARTERLY NO. 74 • 2025 3 – 11 between securitisation and preventative approaches to crime and violence. In many settings, securitisation takes priority as the intervention of choice. Cities all over the world spend significant percentages of their budgets on securitisation, often installing eyewateringly expensive physical barriers, access, surveillance and tracking systems. Despite scarce resources, many cities in South Africa have followed the same route. It is notably easier to fund a security installation than it is to support other types of initiatives. For example, programmes that aim to enhance the aesthetics or management of public spaces often struggle to secure funding. The same applies to initiatives that organise social or cultural events which promote vibrancy and harmony in the same neighbourhood. The private security industry in South Africa grew by 43% during the past decade, with a turnover of R2,2 billion in 2025.2 In a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on policing held on 12 March 2025, the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) reported that there are now more than 2,8 million security officers registered in South Africa. However, only 577 444 are currently actively employed. No information was offered as to the whereabouts of the remaining 2,2 million. What has happened to our levels of safety and our investment in safety in the same time period? There is no clear answer to this. The South African Cities Network (SACN) State of Urban Safety Report 2024 reflects on a decade of – sometimes very innovative and useful – public safety interventions in our major cities.3 This includes the work done on early childhood development, public spaces, community participation and community development, which could be added to the numbers. Yet, there is not one credible source or even estimate of expenditure dedicated to enhancing 3 – 12 INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES safety. Notably, there is also no direct profit to be made out of it. The 2024 Victims of Crime Survey recorded that 80% of people felt safe walking in their neighbourhood during the day, but only 34% felt safe walking in their neighbourhood at night.4 Ten years ago, the same survey recorded that 86% of people felt safe walking during the day, and 31% felt safe walking at night.5 As such, there was no conclusive change. There is a potentially interesting gender element to securitisation and safety approaches; it is estimated that women make up less than 11% of security workers in South Africa.6 Men dominate in metro police departments. Also, the decision-makers in public safety in municipalities are almost inevitably not only men, but men with a history in policing of some kind. This group is more likely to believe in tangible, visible security measures as opposed to ‘soft’ interventions. Women favours the latter more in these environments and typically come to the field from a social work or development and planning background. Proponents of securitisation have a common refrain: ‘crime and violence prevention take years if not decades to deliver impact, whereas people want a solution now’. It is true that to truly break the cycle of intergenerational violence, consistent intervention over many years is needed. However, there is obviously no such thing as a short-term or linear solution to the complex problem of unsafety. It might be that what is meant is that people want to observe something that purports to secure an environment. In such a case, private security does that visibly very well. However, at a significantly lower cost, the community can co-create a beautiful, communal space. This space will allow children to safely play under the natural surveillance of older neighbours as they tend to the gardens or sit in the sun. It is an option that quite rapidly delivers something tangible while also increasing opportunities for community engagement. Furthermore, it is something that works well across different socio-economic spaces, with a limited extent of support from private security service providers.7 habits of those they watch, as well as where the The secura approach prioritises crime reduction, securitisation and response. It is reliant on: (1) weapons; (2) boots on the ground; (3) increasingly more expensive and sophisticated technology-based security and surveillance tools; (4) armed response and big data sets; and (5) recording incidents of crime and/or violence. At the neighbourhood level, the wealthy, who can afford it and who have expensive assets to protect, favour such security systems. They are compelled to protect themselves behind solid, real or virtual walls, under lock and key, with carefully controlled access.8 Most, if not all, security systems are grounded in suspicion and fear of the other; somewhere lies the assumption that, given any opportunity, people are likely to act in a criminal way. Public right of way and freedom of movement, as well as the right to privacy, are lost as part of the considerable cost of such systems. There is apparently little concern for the consequences. things private sector versus the suspicion of Trust of the Public Finance Management Act.11 This Less than one third of South Africans trust the police, which is perhaps not surprising since little has happened to repair the fractured relationships caused by Apartheid policing.9 In general, trust in (...truncated)