Violence is not freedom either

I just read an article on the reader blog called “Fear is not freedom”. Sipho Mazibuko, who labels himself a recent victim of crime seems to suggest that the solution to South Africa’s shared fear is to take the law into our own hands. He says:

What is our prerogative as citizens when taking the law into your own hands is frowned upon as vigilantism? Is this the end of our world as we know it? … [later on] Do we harbour criminals in the form of our brothers, uncles and fathers? If so then we are not only perpetuating crime but are the criminals themselves.

So Sipho is worried that if we don’t act against violence, we are committing violence of omission. By not doing something we are allowing violence to affect others, and essentially we are making our own uncomfortable bed upon which we must eventually lie.

In some ways I agree with him. If we don’t act against violence it will continue. If we don’t actively promote human rights they will become mere ink in paper. If we aren’t being protected by the state forces, and we are not protecting ourselves, then who are we to hold responsible for our protection?

The law exists only in its applicability and only because the general public accept that it is legitimate and can be applied to others. When the public finds that a law is no longer just, they have the means to change the law by application, by protest and by public outcry. In this way the law is a constant and evolving body of regulations that serve to make society governable, and to secure our rights. So taking the law into our hands should mean that we look at it, consider its application and judge as part of a collective whether we see our interests reflected inside it.

If I have understood his article correctly, what Sipho is suggesting sounds slightly more sinister. It suggest a process of becoming part of the cycle of violence until we recycle its aggression and the forces of good prevail. But taking the law into our own hands is inherently problematic. At what point does the group who has taken it upon themselves to apply the law become governed by the law? Or to put it more simply, how many people do I murder in the name of the law, before I too must be judged as a murderer? If I assault someone because they assaulted someone, the bottom line is that in the name of stopping assault I have become my own enemy and a threat to the cause.

So what then? Many of us feel helpless to do something and the thought of criminals escaping unpunished or with punishments that simply do not seem just in light of their crimes can feel like a heavy burden to bear. But what if there were no laws, and no justice system at all? Imagine then how many crimes would go unnoticed in the scrabble for scarce resources and the barking madness of a dog eat dog world. Is this the sort of system that we would advocate for?

Violence can never be freedom because at its roots is the necessity for retaliation. An eye for an eye will soon become a body for a body. But lives are simply not expendable in this fashion. So whilst fear may feel like a cage and the sieve-like concepts of human rights may make you feel like you are watching your rights trickle past you and around you, a society without the rejection of violence is inherently more dangerous and more prison-like. It is just not the way forward.