By Susan Featherstone
South Africans see, read and hear depressing news on a daily basis.
We live in a society where no one has the luxury of feeling safe. Children are exposed to drugs and crime at school, grandmothers are raped, pregnant moms are shot, tourists are mugged and even the police themselves are victims of crime.
There is no discrimination when it comes to who is targeted.
Schools are vandalised, hospitals have their copper wire stolen, ATMs are blown up and cars are hijacked. South Africans are fed up with the high levels of crime they encounter on a daily basis and they want answers.
Continues Below ↓
When you are not safe in your home, at your school, on the train or in your car then you begin to ask who is to blame. We asked our readers who was responsible for the horrific crime situation in South Africa, and if that blame should rest at the feet of Charles Nqakula.
We want to know: Should the minister of safety and security be held responsible for crime?
On the IOL poll 758 (88%) people voted YES, while 107 (12%) people said NO.
A few reader comments:
Rayner: Running a country is the same as running a business, and in any business if you are not performing in the field that you are responsible for, you are out! It is time for all the ministers who are not performing, to move out.
Len Anderson: The Minister is not responsible for crime, but responsible for crime prevention strategies. Criminals are responsible for crime, and police are responsible for carrying out the Minister's strategy on crime. I have to admit though, the Minister is failing this one.
Silk: Of course!! What do you think cabinet ministers are there for? To indulge in verbal flatulence and draw fat salaries?
Anton: Reluctantly I said yes because he cannot be held directly responsible for crime but should be responsible for the systems in place to decrease crime. If the systems, police, courts etc are not properly managed, he is directly responsible. He is not accountable for each individual episode of crime.
Khanya: How can people say he must be blamed for crime when all that he does is to prevent crime. No one can ever stop the crime but we can all take responsibility and not do crime.
Phaedioux: The way the question is phrased, naturally the answer must be 'no!'. It is impossible for him to be responsible for crimes committed. However, if the questioned referred to 'accountable for his incompetence in dealing with his portfolio', then the answer has to be 'yes!' Bring on 'constituency based' elections so that we can vote for candidates who are more likely to have the skills to succeed rather than how long they were imprisoned/exiled, or how many 'bigshots' they know.
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
