The Passing out Parade: Demilitarisation of the Correctional Services.

Dissel, A. (1996). The Passing out Parade: Demilitarisation of the Correctional Services. In Acta Criminologica, Vol. 10, No. 1.

 

In Acta Criminologica, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1997.

Amanda Dissel is Manager of the Criminal Justice Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Introduction

In July 1995 The Minister of Correctional Services, Dr Sipo Mzimela, announced that the Department of Correctional Services was to be demilitarised. The Minister stated that demilitarisation will have important psychological effects on "inmates, personnel and the whole country." He reasoned that the Department is an "..institution where we help people to change their behaviour. It is not a military institution".¹ Demilitarisation was finally introduced on 1 April 1996.

Demilitarisation of the Department had been viewed with increasing importance since the 1994 elections. Many organisations had been calling for demilitarisation. In order to understand the importance of demilitarisation, the manifestations and implications of a militarised correctional services must be examined and understood. A militarised institution is one which utilises force and authority for the maintenance and exercise of its power. It also relies on traditional military methods to do so. Some of the methods may be discipline, arms, authoritarian communication, unquestioning obedience. All these elements could be seen in the structure of the Department of Correctional Services. The Department has until now adhered to the military discipline. This was enforced through the ranking system, names and symbols, and disciplinary procedures and codes of the military. Force was maintained through training recruits in "paraatheid" (preparedness), where drill, physical fitness and training in the use of weapons was thought to equip warders with the skills necessary to deal with inmates. The hierarchical structure of the organisation restricts communication between different levels of the organisation, relying on the issuing of instructions from above which must be obeyed by those at the lower levels. But more pervasive was the military character of the Department and the attitude of being under constant threat or attack. This was manifest in the Department's reluctance to open itself to criticism and scrutiny by the public, and to maintain secrecy of most of its policies which affect prisoners and public alike. The interests of "security" often prevents members of the public from gaining access to the simplest type of information. While it is true that the Department has been changing its character for some time, and attempts have been made to open the institutions to public involvement, the impression is often created that the doors of this security establishment are firmly bolted against the outside.

There are significant differences between a military and a correctional establishment. A military establishment exists in order to protect the country against foreign invaders and internal threats. It bolsters the authority of the government of the day. A correctional institution or prison, on the other hand, aims to protect the nation through incarceration of dangerous offenders, and more importantly, aims towards the reduction of crime through positive interventions with the offenders. It is not so much concerned with protecting society from outside forces, but rather is dealing with crime as a socio-economic problem of that society.

This paper seeks to examine why a military structure is inappropriate in a prison environment and why demilitarisation of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is necessary. Some of the important areas affected by demilitarisation are highlighted. It will be argued in this paper that a militarised correctional services is inappropriate for an institution which is established for the safe keeping and rehabilitation² of offenders. It further looks at the implications of a militarised and demilitarised structure and culture on the Department.

Background of the Militarised Department of Correctional Services

The Prisons Department, in terms of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, No 13 of 1911, laid the basis for some degree of military structure. Subordinates within the Department were trained in military discipline and had military rank and status. They were required to wear military uniform and to salute their superiors. The senior officers, administrative staff and the management were civilians, wearing civilian dress. At the time of the Lansdown Commission³ in 1949 arguments were advanced in favour of the complete militarisation of the Department. The Commission, however, was not in favour of militarisation of the executive of the prison service and placing them in uniform. It held the view that:

… senior officers are better able, when not vested with military rank and clothed in military uniform, to hold the balance between subordinate officers and the inmates of the institution, and themselves are far more accessible to the inmates than they would be as military officers. Nor in the opinion of the Commission, under a scheme of military ranks and discipline, would that human contact between officers and inmates exist enabling the former to apply to the latter the various rehabilitative influences which modern views deem essential. (para 677)

On the other hand, the Commission maintained that subordinates should maintain their military status, but those members of staff in institutions for "subnormal, psycho neurotic or psychopaths prisoners or release depots" should wear civilian clothing. It appears that Lansdown drew the distinction between disciplinary staff, or warders, who took care of the day to day operations in the prison, and treatment orientated staff who were required to interact with prisoners and rehabilitate them. He suggested that rehabilitation of prisoners should be the planned aim of the Prisons Department and this would be facilitated by the civilian attire and conduct of the senior members.

Lansdown's recommendations were important in recognising that a rehabilitative environment is best created by a civilian prisons staff. However, he failed to recognise the role which the ordinary warder could play in "rehabilitating" prisoners, instead confining that role to the senior officers and professional staff. In reality, it is the warder who interacts with the prisoner on a daily basis, and few prisoners ever have access to the "treatment orientated" staff.

Disregarding Lansdown's recommendations, the Department of Prisons was fully militarised with the rewriting of the Prisons Act in 1959, from the Commissioner as the head of the organisation through to the subordinates. The military status of the Department of Correctional Services (as it is now named) remained this way until the recent demilitarisation.

Organisational Structure of the DCS Prior to 1 April 1996

The Department of Correctional Services was a service Department within the government sector with a military character. The Correctional Services personnel are civil servants, although their status was that of para-military personnel. Clear military ranking structures were laid down in the Regulations to the Act. The Correctional Services Act no 8 of 1959 made allowance for the employment of commissioned and non commissioned officers. Non-commissioned officers were appointed by the Commissioner. Commissioned officers were appointed by the State President, and could be discharged by the Minister. Their conditions of service and salaries are determined by the Public Service Act No 111 of 1984. When members resigned from service they became, (and remained until the age of 55 years) with the concurrence of the Chief of the South African Defence Force, members of the reserve force. A commissioned officer could under certain circumstances retain his rank on retirement or be granted a higher honorary rank. During South Africa's states of emergency, the DCS has been defined as a "security force" in terms of which they were given wide ranging powers of arrest and detention to enable them to "maintain law and order".

The powers of the Department are laid down in the Correctional Services Act from which the various levels of personnel derive their legal authority. The Department is presently organised in a pyramid shape with the head of the organisation, the Commissioner, and the highest ranking individual, at the top. Clear lines of authority extend from him down to the bottom of the organisation. The management structure is characterised by the strict definition of responsibility and delegation of tasks to individuals. The fulfilment of tasks is strictly supervised and punitive measures could be used for non fulfilment. The military character of the Department increased the bureaucratic authority of personnel at each level of authority. Instructions given to subordinates had to be followed unquestioningly. At the lower levels, discretion is limited and creativity discouraged. Decisions are made by the higher levels of management and are communicated in detail down to the lower levels for implementation.

In the military set up, an individual gains his or her authority not so much from the post position he or she occupies, but from the person's rank. However, the level of authority is not always consistent with rank, and a situation may arise (especially at the lower levels) where two individuals of different rank occupy the same post level. For instance a warrant officer could occupy the post of head of prison (usually a higher ranking officer held this position), and although he may have the same responsibilities of other heads of prisons, he would not have the same authority or ability to participate in decision making when amongst personnel of a higher rank.

Decision making in the Department is largely centralised, although there are now nine regional areas headed by regional Commissioners. The Generals in the Department formed the top management level and they make decisions regarding the corporate policy of the Department. Middle management (situated at Head Office) are responsible for functional policy decisions while their counterparts in the command areas and heads of prisons have to ensure that the policy is adhered to. The lower management is responsible for the management of the sections which they supervise. The majority of staff are excluded from decision making.

Arguments for Demilitarisation

Demilitarisation has been raised as a concern on several occasions since the Lansdown Commission. Demilitarisation was discussed in 1976 when rationalisation of the civil service was instituted and was also mentioned in 1993 during the Budget debate, but it was not followed through. Some of the reasons which were advanced for demilitarisation then are still valid today. These are examined more fully.

The military structure has been viewed as bolstering apartheid separatism in the Department. At the time of the Lansdown Commission, black personnel were restricted to jobs as "Native Warders", and "Senior Native Warders", and they were required to supervise "native" prisoners only. The posts of superintendents, assistant superintendents, chief warders, warders, matrons and wardresses were reserved for white personnel. These were the managerial positions (Lansdown para 713). Although in later years, officers jobs were no longer strictly reserved for whites, the statistics for 1990 indicate that 90% of the officers positions were filled by white personnel and only 9,2% by black, coloured and Indian personnel.⁴ The numbers of white officers had reduced in 1994 to 68,4%. This is partially as a result of affirmative action and promotion of black candidates, but it is largely attributable to the reincorporation of the ex TVBC and KwaZulu Natal Prison Services into the Correctional Services. Although not the only prohibiting factor, the strict requirements before personnel are promoted to a higher military rank often disqualified black personnel who had not attained the required academic standards. Black staff were also seldom extended as many training opportunities as other staff and formal and informal prejudice sought to prevent the fulfilling of black members' career aspirations.

There is also a negative association with the South African Defence Force which played its part in maintaining the apartheid regime through domestic repression of anti apartheid activists and civilians. The prisons played a more direct role in enforcing apartheid legislation through the incarceration of many of the regime's opponents, both as sentenced and awaiting trial prisoners. The symbolic act of breaking from the militarised past represents a commitment to a more democratic future which is committed to building up the South African people irrespective of race, religion or class.

The Reconstruction and Development Programme White Paper clearly supports demilitarisation and states that security forces should be non partisan, professional, and uphold the Constitution and respect human rights. It further states that our society should develop a different demilitarised ethic. (paragraph 1.3.4.) The key to the RPD programme in the public sector involves the democratisation of institutions.⁵ The RDP programme of the ANC went further than this stating that "prison staff need to be trained to reflect this approach (non sexist and non racist) and to transform the present military command structure of the prison service."⁶

In support of this The Alternative White Paper prepared by the Penal Reform Lobby Group⁷ argued that the military nature of the DCS connected it strongly with apartheid's security structure and that demilitarisation would represent perhaps the greatest commitment to a new democratic order.

The Department followed a cautious approach to demilitarisation in its White Paper in 1994.⁸ While it undertook to investigate demilitarising the Department, it stated that it doubted whether the military character prevented the fulfilment of the aim of rehabilitation.

The Department has not initiated any investigation, but a comparison of a military and non military institution leads this writer to believe that a military character is not conducive to rehabilitation. Although the DCS shares many characteristics of the military, it can be distinguished from other military institutions such as the defence force. A military institution characteristically serves the purpose of protection of the state from internal and external threats. It relies on sophisticated weaponry and the use of armed force. It has a large nationalised personnel corps and often relies on conscription for recruitment of members. The DCS, on the other hand, serves the interests of security in the provision of safe custody of offenders. Similar to other militaries, DCS staff place their services at the full disposal of the state, and may be called upon to perform their official duties at any time or place. Members are appointed through recruitment, but in times of "war, disturbances of the public peace, riot or other emergency or apprehended emergency" they may not resign except with the permission of the Commissioner.⁹ They are also accommodated in departmental housing adjacent to the workplace, and specialised recreational clubs, shops and sporting facilities ensure that the prison complexes operate as integral units isolated from the outside world.

Military institutions are traditionally associated with the security of state institutions, with upholding state authority, and for the utilisation of force in the attainment of its objectives. It can be argued that an institution which is premised on repressive and aggressive measures can not fulfil the function of developing offenders entrusted to its care. While the primary emphasis of correctional services in the past may have been on the punishment and incapacitation of offenders, this is not appropriate in modern understanding of corrections. Correctional institutions should aim primarily to rehabilitate and develop offenders enabling them to lead a more productive and crime free life on release from prison.

The reliance on offensive measures to maintain internal discipline and order while protecting the security establishment, is a concept which occurs at the expense of the ideal of rehabilitation of offenders. Military type rules require a minimum of interaction with the offender, and a sense that the inmate is the enemy who must be kept at bay. International penological trends indicate that an interactive approach with offenders often results in better order inside the prison. Since this approach requires that offenders are treated with respect, and their individual dignity is accepted, the opportunity is created for greater self growth and acknowledgement of responsibility for individual actions. The disciplinary focus of the DCS needs to shift to preventative security, through observation, negotiation, mediation and peaceful settlement of disputes.

The Department of Correctional Services also argued in the White Paper that the military structure is attractive to new recruits,¹⁰ and that it enables stricter control of staff and inmates than a civilian order would do. This argument is also questioned. The reliance on the attraction of the miliary status for new recruits is an inappropriate one for anyone involved in corrections, and perhaps results in recruitment of staff unsuited to work with prisoners. The emphasis for new recruits should instead be focused on their maturity, their understanding of prisoners and imprisonment, and on their desire to be involved in rehabilitation or the development of offenders.

The argument that the military structure maintains discipline is questionable. There have been numerous complaints by prisoners against staff of assault and abuse. In many instances it has been alleged that staff have been involved in instigating prisoners to commit acts of violence against fellow prisoners. Prisoner on prisoner violence has also continued unchecked despite this so-called military discipline. An end to militarisation will not on its own reduce human rights abuses of prisoners. However, it needs to be made clear that the use of force in the prison environment is not always the appropriate means to maintain discipline and order, and it is not the way in which the goals of corrections can be achieved.

New correctional recruits presently receive training primarily in physical fitness, drill, legal aspects of their work, and practical duties, such as gate duty. A very small part of their training involves learning how to deal with prisoners. The new training curriculum has attempted to change the situation, but it has still allocated only a small part to interpersonal relationships with prisoners. The criminological aspects of prison officers' work is usually only covered through private study with the University of South Africa (UNISA) or Technicon RSA.¹¹ Members were in the past expressly discouraged to avoid interacting with prisoners and building relationships. Prisoners were, until demilitarisation, required to address members by their rank, and although they were not required to salute members, they had to come to attention when a staff member addressed them. These factors militate against a rehabilitative relationship developing between prisoners and staff.

All prisoners are required to respect DCS military hierarchy and are expected to stand to attention in the presence of officers. According to an ex member of the DCS,¹² prisoners learn to respect members on the basis of their rank only, and not on the basis of their qualifications. This may lead to the absurd situation where a prisoner refuses to speak to a qualified psychologist of low rank, but prefers to discuss his problems with an untrained sergeant.

International Trends in Penal Institutions

During South Africa's apartheid years and exclusion from the international community it was not strictly bound by any international human rights covenants dealing specifically with prisoners rights. However, Dirk van Zyl Smit, South Africa's foremost prisons writer, argues that many of the international standards have become binding on South Africa through the application of international legal principles. With South Africa's re-entry into the international world, these principles have become increasingly important.

Article VII of the Recommendations on the Selection and Training of Personnel for Penal and Corrective Institutions , adopted in conjunction with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners¹³ in 1955, states that prison staff should be organised specifically along civilian rather than military lines. A more recent handbook, Making Standards Work,¹⁴ has elaborated on the rule and suggests that:

A prison should not have a militaristic set-up. An overly hierarchial structure and a military approach inhibit individual staff responsibility and reduce personal involvement and individual care. (145)

In line with this approach, many European countries have adopted a civilian prison structure, or have transformed their military organisation into a civilian one. Italy, Cuba, Israel, Austria, and Hungary maintain a military structure. Most of South Africa's neighbours, (Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania, Botswana and Zimbabwe), have also moved away from the military model.

International trends in penal institutions are orientated towards assisting offenders leading a crime free life on release from prison and settling into the community on release. For these reasons it is proposed that prison rules and regulations should be conducive to adjustment and integration, and conditions in prison should differ from those in the community only in so much as is necessary for purposes of their confinement. A correctional institution which has a militarised approach is inconsistent with the civilian culture which predominates in most civil societies. Imprisonment creates its own unique environment which differs from that prevailing outside. If the institution is militarised, further alienation is created which imposes a barrier to adjustment and rehabilitation.

Some of the international examples of correctional departments which have demilitarised, for example New South Wales, retain a ranking structure but utilises civilian terms and codes. Canada, on the other hand, has undergone a far more fundamental change and in the process has reorganised their Department of Corrections. Canada has recently changed the structure of its Department of Corrections from a para-military organisation to a professional case management approach with greater participative management. Canada follows the unit management approach where each institution is divided into smaller sections, each headed by a "Unit Manager". There are four managerial levels within each institution, each with its defined responsibilities. Each level has greater responsibility for the programmes which they manage and for the delivery of services to prisoners.

Denmark has also recently undergone institutional change. On the Departmental level, the Department is headed by the Director General. There are two deputy directors general who head Budget and Personnel, and Treatment of Offenders and Crime Policy respectively. It is the policy of the Department that there are no regional structures which stand between individual institutions and the head office. At an institutional level, there are five levels of senior managerial responsibility, all by the name of governor. There are only two levels below that: prison officer and trainee prison officer. The prison officer is given greater responsibility and variety of work. In addition to their security function, they are required to fulfil certain social work, spare time and occupation work with the prisoners to whom they are allocated. This type of work fulfils the dual function of giving the officer a higher degree of competence and responsibility as well as creating better opportunities for supporting prisoners and motivating them to lead a crime free life on their release. The institutions are divided into autonomous units, each with its own permanent staff.

Both Canada and Denmark are structured along a flatter hierarchy. The positions of staff are characterised by the function they fulfil and not by their title or status. There is a decentralised system of management allowing for participation from members and greater interaction with prisoners. This assists the prison to achieve its goal of creating an environment conducive for a prisoners reintegration into the community and living a crime free life after release, at the same time creating maximum opportunity for the personal development of the offender.

Challenges for Demilitarisation

Demilitarisation occurs within the context of transformation of correctional services as a whole and it should not be viewed in isolation of the process. Transformation occurs at a particularly significant time in South Africa's history. The opportunity exists in state institutions for real fundamental change, and many of the Departments, such as Safety and Security, have gone the route of re-examining the nature and extent of the police service. The time has come for correctional services to do the same re-examination. Change in the Department should not only result in a mere renaming of the structures, but a more far reaching and meaningful transformation of the institution which entails a thorough restructuring of the Department of Correctional Services.

After announcing demilitarisation, the Minister requested the Transformation Forum on Correctional Services (TFCS)¹⁵ to formulate recommendations for a new demilitarised correctional services. The Forum consulted with a number of organisations, and together with the department prepared a document on demilitarisation.¹⁶ Although this was presented to the Minister in February, a second document prepared solely by the Department (although based on the joint TFCS/ department document) formed the basis of the demilitarisation strategy. The department strategy has largely focused on removal of visible signs of militarism. Thus the names of the ranks have changed, and civilian terms are used instead of military ones. Forms of address have changed so that members are no longer called by the name of "sergeant", "general", or "lieutenant", but are addressed according to the civilian titles of "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss". The rank insignias have been removed from uniforms, although the current khaki uniform will be retained until a new uniform is designed. Staff who are not in direct contact with prisoners, and those in the head office will no longer be required to wear uniform. However, the strategy has failed to deal with the non-visible elements of demilitarisation, such as culture and discipline. It also failed to create an effective plan for implementation.

In late March, members of the Correctional Services were still completing questionnaires on how they felt about demilitarisation. Towards the end of March, they were given instructions that they were to demilitarise on 1 April 1996. No mechanism was introduced to acclimatise members to the new concept, nor was there one dealing with their concerns. For members used to dealing with issues of discipline according to military codes, removal of those codes meant a hiatus in discipline.

Demilitarisation for the department appears to have meant simply a removal of all things pertaining to the military. Yet, demilitarisation should go beyond this to establishing a new culture on the department. The way in which demilitarisation was introduced is an indication of the department's lack of commitment to consultation.

The validity of transformation in the DCS is doubtful without full consultation and discussion of polices with stakeholders, and importantly, with staff. In order for members to feel included and secure about demilitarisation, it is imperative to involve them at all stages of the process. Similarly, public support lends legitimacy to transformation.

Recommendations for Change

Organisational Structure

Demilitarization could merely consist of a change of name and military code and retention of the basic organisational structure. However, it is clear that the type of pyramidical structure in the organisation operates best under a militaristic culture. The demands of a democratic South Africa require a new approach to management of public sector institutions, and for the Correctional Services Department. Demilitarisation should serve as an opportunity to reevaluate the existing structure and to develop an organisational structure and management approach appropriate to the demands of a democratic society. Adebayo Adedeji, the Head of the UN Economic Commission for Africa stated that:

The democratisation of the development process – by which we mean the empowerment of the people, their involvement in decision-making, in implementation and monitoring processes – is a condition sine qua for socio-economic recovery and transformation.¹⁷

The extent to which prisoners can participate in managerial decisions is extremely limited. However, there is potential for involving a greater number of staff in participative management. There are already some procedures in place for staff participation,¹⁸ but it occurs mainly around affirmative action issues. Participative management would be a particularly important step at this stage. It would create the opportunities for staff to engage in real management and staff development. The effects of apartheid policies have resulted in a management predominated by white personnel. Democratic management would allow for under-represented groups to be affirmed and developed, and trained to take an active part in the management of prisons.

The new demilitarised structure follows the police example¹⁹ by reducing the number of post levels and changing their names. The positions are renamed according to civilian titles, and only members in a few positions, such as the head of prison and the commander, will retain some form of title. The new structure should go someway towards creating greater opportunity for staff participation at all levels. However, this is an unsatisfactory and incomplete solution. This structure may fulfil the short term requirement of urgent demilitarisation, but it does not create a new democratic management style.

The Department of Correctional Services has introduced the unit management approach into some prisons as a pilot project, and intends to embrace the concept throughout its prisons. It is proposed that this approach has the "philosophy, strategies and programmes for skills, knowledge and coping strategies to be acquired and a change in attitude to occur", to meet the needs of temporal security and deterrence, as well as for lessening the harmful effects of imprisonment through offering the opportunity for development of prisoners.²⁰ The Unit Management approach requires the prison to be divided into manageable units each under the control of a unit manager. This approach also requires a greater decentralisation of managerial responsibility, and should allow for a certain degree of institutional independence. Because this approach relies on a multidisciplinary team, it also creates a more professional prison staff.

Unit management entails a restructuring of the organisation at a local level, but it has implications for the restructuring at Head Office as well. Broad policies regarding prison management and offender care should be made at head office, but greater responsibility would be given to the heads of unit management institutions to give content to that policy and to ensure its implementation in the most meaningful way. In order to give meaning to democratic management at all levels, further restructuring of the DCS would be required.

The present emphasis on strict communication channels along the line functions prohibits free communication and participation from lower ranking members. Restructuring should attempt to open up those channels which prevent a members from communicating with anyone other than his immediate superior.

Concerns of Members

Many DCS staff feel threatened by the concept of demilitarisation and this is one of the key concerns expressed by the employee organisations. Staff may have spent many years, and for some, all of their working lives will have been spent in achieving promotions to a higher rank. The status and identity of a military rank is unique, and for many it is valued highly by themselves and their community. Many people will not wish to lose that status. For many black personnel, the achievement of rank status was even more highly valued since it was so difficult and unusual to achieve under a system which discriminated against black members. Some black members perceived that members were only promoted if they are prepared to unquestioningly submit to the authority of the white command structure, and accordingly those black members of high rank were not to be trusted.

The difference between commissioned and non commissioned officers is emphasised and the benefits which were accorded to officers set them apart from their inferiors. Commissioned officers held a managerial position. This position will now be maintained, but they should not be accorded the same differential in status.

One source says that officers had an interest in maintaining the status quo. Many of the officers obtained their ranks, but do not necessarily have the academic qualifications or work experience to support their status. A loss of rank to such members may pose a threat as they may be required to compete with less senior members with greater qualifications.

Commissioned officers stand to lose their status if the distinction between officers and non commissioned officers is removed. Prevailing norms determine that the officers and non officers should not socialise and a subordinate is required to salute or show respect to a superior, even when off duty. Demilitarisation, and the removal of this distinction would serve to integrate the personnel.

The military status conferred on members certain benefits which they are concerned may not accrue to them under a civilian status. For example, as part of the security establishment, members benefit under the Defence Force medical aid scheme, apparently a far more advantageous system at no cost to members. Members are paid a danger allowance, even those members working in the Head Office. These issues should be discussed in the departmental bargaining chamber.

The new structure must take into account affirmative action requirements. Presently there are many members from disadvantaged groups who have reached a glass ceiling at the lower rank levels. A restructuring of the rank levels which reduces the number of post levels would facilitate the promotion of large numbers of these people to a higher level. The Linda Human Forum²¹ agreed upon a promotion ratio of 70:30, in favour of disadvantaged groups, ensuring that members are identified and selected for accelerated promotion as well. The present proposals for restructuring should only be seen as short term and as facilitating affirmative action. Long term solutions would also have to take affirmative action into account, but could utilise a different structure.

When demilitarisation was introduced no attempt was made to reassure members of their concerns. Many do not know how they will be able to function without their military status and discipline, or how they will be able to control prisoners. In some prisons, this has already led to a loss of institutional discipline and morale.

Uniforms, Rank Insignia and Titles

Much of the culture of the Department was manifested through the military uniforms, ranks and titles. For many staff, these military symbols gave status and created a sense of identity. In demilitarising, attention needs to be paid to the creation of a new identity based on civilian standards. An important indication of a change in identity is in the dress of the staff. Management and staff not directly involved with prisoners will wear private clothing under demilitarisation. New uniforms for the remaining staff have yet to be designed. The non custodial, or the professional staff such as teachers, social workers and health workers should not be required to wear uniform. They are professionals who must maintain, and be seen to be maintaining their independence from those aspects of the correctional services which are equated with enforcing discipline and order.

A uniform should be developed which is quite distinctive from the current khaki uniform which symbolises the military culture of the Department.

The provision of uniforms is currently considered as part of members' benefits, and allowances for civilian dress will have to be negotiated through the bargaining chamber.

Training

If South Africa goes the route of reorganising the structure of the DCS, it must be recognised that there are various aspects of the organisation and the way it functions which will be altered. The attitudes of staff towards each other, seniors towards subordinates, and subordinates to seniors, will have to change. Different managerial practices may be introduced as well as new penal policies and procedures. These will have to be communicated to staff who will have to develop familiarity with new procedures.

Inevitably, in order to facilitate organisational change, training programmes must be devised and made available for staff at all levels. Organisational change will not occur through training alone. A greater commitment from all levels of management is required, and organisational change should be reflected in the corporate plans of the institution.

Bill Kidston, the Director General of Corrections in Victoria²² states that the senior and middle managers should be the first groups to receive training, in order to demonstrate their commitment to training of all staff. New concepts can then be disseminated through to the lower levels.

Training need not only be through formal procedures, but may also occur through the informal provision of skills and knowledge required to carry out the work, and the development of changing attitudes, as well as the provision of skills necessary for managing and initiating organisational change.

The basic training of new recruits will have to be fundamentally changed. A large proportion of the programme currently focuses on military aspects, drill and security measures. A demilitarised system does not require such an intensive focus on these aspects of correctional work. There is no doubt that there should be some emphasis on physical fitness and self defence techniques, but the security aspect should focus instead on preventative and dynamic security techniques. If a new system which is based on participative, or unit management is introduced, the correctional officer may be required to fulfil a number of tasks which prison officers were not taught in the past. Similarly, if the warder is required to have a more interactive relationship with prisoners, then he may be required to fulfil the functions of social worker, advisor, guidance counsellor, as well as performing the custodial function. Special training will have to be provided to allow correctional officers to gain the requisite skills.

Disciplinary Procedures

The DCS presently follows the military disciplinary procedures and codes which require unquestioning loyalty and obedience to orders. A source suggested that some members, particularly the officers, are concerned that demilitarisation would result in a lack of discipline among members.

"Discipline will deteriorate, but one can't say it is discipline if it is maintained by force. Discipline should be based on respect rather than on force."²³

The Correctional Services Act made provision for three types of disciplinary proceedings against members.

1. Members of the Department and temporary warders may be tried by a magistrate for any contravention of the Act. If found guilty, the members can be sentenced to a fine, or to imprisonment not exceeding six months. (S 50)

2. S 53 provided that non commissioned officers and temporary members may be tried by commissioned officers for non compliance of the Act. The member is entitled to legal representation, but the inquiry takes the form of a criminal trial rather than a disciplinary enquiry which is the labour practice for most employees.

3. S 55 lays down a separate procedure in the case of misconduct of commissioned officers which follows the format of a disciplinary enquiry rather than a trial.

S60 of the Act absolves a member from prosecution in any other court of the land if he has been tried and convicted, or acquitted, in terms of this Act.

It is not clear why the procedures should be so different for commissioned and non commissioned members, and why the procedures against the ordinary members should take the form of a trial. The language of the procedure clearly intends to criminalise the members accused of misconduct. This format follows the military model where commissioned officers are treated with greater respect and are entitled to charge and prosecute their subordinates, often with little or insufficient training. It is also contrary to the norms of contemporary labour relations.

A fair and equitable disciplinary procedure needs to be established which is the same for senior and junior members. Provision should also be made for members to be represented by another member or a member of their trade union.

The disciplinary offenses should also be reviewed. Regulation 71 sets out the contravention to the Act and Regulations. Some of the regulations are in clear need of revision, for example R71(o) makes it an offence to "without the permission of the Commissioner, knowingly associate(s) in any manner with an ex-prisoner or with a relative or friend of a prisoner", and 71 (ee) makes it an offence for a member to become "financially embarrassed".

The disciplinary procedure and offenses need to be addressed in demilitarising the Department, so that the procedure reflects civilian methods of disciplining staff.

Maintaining Discipline in Prison

Military codes and ethics call for a certain type of discipline from prisoners. Respect and deference to high ranking officers is called for. The personnel are all militarised and give instructions to prisoners, instead of creating the impression of being open and available to listen to prisoners concerns. Prisoners are also expected to lodge complaints along rank lines, and report matters to their immediate highest ranking officer, rather than approaching the head of prison directly.

But perhaps the most important impact of militarism is the reliance on force or the threat of force in maintaining order in the prison. Members are equipped and are trained in the use of batons, as well as on the use of firearms. Members were in the past not trained on non violent methods of maintaining peace in the prison, and many continue to use force in solving disputes and in controlling difficult prisoners.

Non violent solutions to disturbances needs to be included in the training curricula of new recruits. More senior officers also need to be trained in the use of these methods. The use of force should only be used at the last resort, and then only by specially trained personnel.

Conclusion

In keeping with the requirements of democracy and transparency, there should be full consultation with the people affected by decisions before these take place. In the process of demilitarisation, there was no consultation before the decision to demilitarise was taken, and only very limited consultation in devising a vision for a demilitarised department. Almost no consultation has occurred around the actual implementation of new structures or culture. While demilitarisation may occur more smoothly in some provinces or sectors of the department, there are bound to be many members who feel excluded and alienated from the process. Their concerns must be thoroughly dealt with to minimise potential frustration and disillusionment. The task of dealing with members' concerns should not be left to the unions, but should be directed from the department itself. Opportunities need to be created where members can express their grievances and voice their concerns, and in turn, these concerns need to be taken seriously by management.

Demilitarisation of the Department of Correctional Services involves more than a mere renaming of parts. It requires a thorough examination of the existing culture and structure of the Department, and a concerted effort to move away from the ethics of militarism.

The Department appears to be opting for a phased process to demilitarisation which involves removing the obvious signs of the military culture. A comprehensive plan which addresses the more structural and cultural issues has not been developed. While this may be a faster and more cost effective solution, it fails to address the real issues behind demilitarisation: transformation of the structures, culture and ideology of the department of Correctional Services.

Notes:

¹ "Mzimela announces demilitarising the prisons dept", 1 July 1995, Citizen.

² The word "rehabilitation" is used with caution as traditional rehabilitation programmes following the medical and psychoanalytical models have been discredited in prisons. The writer is referring to programmes which seek to develop the offender and assist him/her to lead a crime free life.

³ The Lansdown Commission was appointed to investigate the prison system. It was headed by the Hon Charles. W. H Lansdown. K. C. Report of the Prison Reform Commission. 1947. Pretoria. Government Printer.

⁴ Statistics for Officers Corps 1990 vs 1994 as at 94/12/31.

⁵ RDP White Paper: Discussion Document, CTP Book Printers, Cape.

⁶ Paragraph 5.8.1. The Reconstruction and Development Programme: a Policy Framework. 1994. Cape Town, ABC Printers.

⁷ February 1995.

⁸ White Paper on the Policy of the Department of Correctional Services in the New South Africa, 1994, Pretoria, Government Printer, page 22.

⁹ S 12 (9) of the Correctional Sevices Act.

¹⁰ Ibid. In discussing the military character of the Department the White Paper states that:
"The Department has +29 000 members who joined the Services as a para-military organisation, thereby obviously associating themselves with its long-standing tradition and culture". (paragraph 3.6.5)

¹¹ Courses offered at these institutions are usually prerequisites to promotion to management positions in the Department of Correctional Services.

¹² Interview with ex member (Interviewee A) of the DCS and member of the Public Servants Association. Interviewee requested to remain anonymous.

¹³ Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 30 August 1995.

¹⁴ Making Standards Work: an international handbook on good prison practice, attempts to give meaning to prison policies and good practice. Penal Reform International.

¹⁵ The Transformation Forum on Correctional Services was established in April 1995 to oversee the transformation of the Correctional Services Department. It is comprised of representatives of the DCS, members of Parliament, and community based and non-governmental organisations. The TFCS has a recommendatory function only.

¹⁶ Demilitarisation Policy Document, submission to the Minister of Correctional Services from the Transformation Forum on Correctional Services: 19 February 1996.

¹⁷ "Aid Tied to Democracy", Africa News (US) 12/02/1990, in "South African Public Administration in Transition" – South Africa's Uncertain Transition: Reflections from Zimbabwe's experience, March 1992.

¹⁸ Affirmative Action committees have been established at some prisons. The Linda Human Forum on Affirmative Action also recommended the establishment of a National Monitoring Forum to monitor the implementation of affirmative action. Forums will also be established on a regional level. The National Training Committee allows for union participation in the design of a new training curriculum. Departmental Bargaining Chambers allow for employee organisations to negotiate around labour issues.

¹⁹ The Department of Safety and Security has recently demilitarised its ranks.

²⁰ "Unit Management Approach", Col Rita Marx, unpublished paper presented to the Function subcommittee of the Transformation Forum on Correctional Services, 18 September 1995.

²¹ In February 1995, the DCS announced the formation of a representative advisory forum to advise the Department on principles and mechanisms for establishing a more representative personnel corps. The forum was chaired by Prof Linda Human, and in July 1995 completed a "Blue Print: Five Year Plan on Affirmative Action for the Department of Correctional Services".

²² Opening address of "Correctional Officer training workshop" held 7-9 1987.

²³ Interviewee A.

Bibliography

Africa Watch Prison Project. 1994. Prison Conditions in South Africa. USA:Human Rights Watch.

Australia Institute of criminology. 1987. "Correctional Officer training" Workshop held 7 – 9 July 1987. Canberra, A.C.T.

Carlie, M K and Minor, K I. eds. Prisons Around the World: Studies in International Penology.1992. USA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Cock, J. 1992. Women, the Military and Militarisation: Some Questions raised by the South African Case, Seminar No 7, Johannesburg, CSVR.

Commission of Inquiry into Unrest in Prisons, Final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Unrest in Prisons Appointed by the President on 27 June 1994. 1995. Pretoria.

Enloe, C. H. Police, Military and Ethnicity: Foundations of State Power. 1980, USA, Transaction Books.

James, Jacobs B.1983. New Perspectives on Prisons and Imprisonment. London: Cornell University Press.

Neser, J J, ed. 1993. Penitentiary Penology, Second Edition. Johannesburg: Lexicon Publishers.

Penal Reform International. Making Standards Work: an international handbook on good prison practice. 1995, The Hague: Penal Reform International.

Penal Reform Lobby Group. 1995. An Alternative White Paper on Correctional Services. Johannesburg.

Report of the Prison Reform Commission, The Hon Charles, W. H. Lansdown. 1947. Pretoria, Government Printer.

Technikon SA. 1994. Correctional Services Management. Study Guides.

The Reconciliation and Development Programme: A Policy Framework. 1994. Cape Town, ABC Printers.

Van Zyl Smit, D. 1992. South African Prison Law and Practice. Durban: Butterworths.

Wits P&DM. Police Organisation and Management Programme: Principles of Public Management. 1993. Public and Development management Programme, Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.

© Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation