Governments the world over are facing unprecedented and multifaceted challenges from Covid-19. In dealing with the pandemic there are many competing considerations as nations strive to protect their citizens from infection while limiting damage to economies.
The South African government responded swiftly and decisively to the threat, with regulations aimed at preventing its spread. The regulations were among the strictest in the world. They included a lockdown preventing most people leaving their homes except for essential goods and services, banned the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, and prevented exercise outside the home.
South Africa’s regulations are built upon sound health considerations
and appear to be a well-meaning attempt to protect the public. Restricting social gatherings and confining individuals to home has been shown to limit the spread of infection, reducing the risk that hospitals will become overwhelmed.
Restricting alcohol sales is designed as a violence prevention measure. Much violence in South Africa is alcohol related, and the thinking was that the lockdown plus alcohol would increase violence risk. Restricting
cigarette sales is linked to some evidence that cigarette use might make individuals more susceptible to the effects of the virus.
However, exploring the regulations and the frequently heavy-handed way in which they have been enforced leads to the conclusion that they might result in a number of unintended negative consequences. In particular they could lead to an increased risk of mental health problems, domestic violence and related abuse, criminality related to the illegal sale of alcohol and cigarettes, and an increase in public protest and disorder.
There are wide economic disparities within South Africa. Some individuals live in free-standing properties that
are well separated from others. This perhaps makes following the regulations a relatively simple matter for them.
However, others live in more crowded accommodation with many of the poorest living in small shacks, sometimes with many others, and with limited access to running water and bathroom facilities. For these people it is difficult to see how they can comply with the regulations. For example, if most people in an area have to leave their home to get water or use a toilet, then, legitimately, a large number of people will be forced to break the lockdown. This makes the lockdown, for them, meaningless.
Within their regulations many governments have allowed exercise outside the home. This has been
seen as essential to minimise psychological strain and resulting mental health challenges from prolonged periods indoors. It is well known that psychological strain has a strong association with the incidence of mental health problems and various forms of offending, including offending
that is anger and violence related.
Prohibiting outdoor exercise might then run a risk of increasing psychological strain the longer the lockdown continues. This will probably be exacerbated for those living in the most overcrowded conditions.
While banning the sale of alcohol is designed to limit the risk of alcohol-related violence, psychological strain induced by being confined to home might undo any positive effects of this. Relatedly, banning the sale of cigarettes might also lead to increased psychological strain and possible violence. It is well established that nicotine withdrawal is related to losses of temper and poor mood.
Like many nations, South Africa has particular problems with sexual assault, rape and child abuse. Much of this offending is carried out by friends and relatives of victims. A prolonged lockdown will do nothing to elevate the risk of this offending. It might even increase it.
Across the world we have seen increases in the rates of domestic abuse and domestic homicide since lockdowns began. South Africa will probably be no exception.
The ban on the sale of alcohol
and cigarettes is unlikely to see a reduction in demand. It might inadvertently create new markets for the illegal sale of the items. This might provoke related offending, some of it violent, as rivals strive to develop and control market share.
There have been significant challenges in how the regulations have been enforced with many reports of heavy-handed and at times brutal methods used by police. This has included beatings, the use of tear gas abd rubber bullets, and has resulted in
some deaths.
This despite President Cyril Ramaphosa insisting that this was unacceptable. The policing methods appear to rest upon a strict model of enforcement that assumes any non-compliance is based on an individual’s disregard for the law.
This flies in the face of the reality for many South Africans who, as discussed, struggle to obey the regulations for perfectly legitimate
reasons such as lack of sanitation and overcrowding. Heavy-handed policing and strict enforcement is likely to be counter-productive.
There is much evidence that brutal policing methods reduce public trust and ultimately compliance with the police. If the regulations continue to be policed in this manner, over time one would expect to see increased social disorder with open defiance of the police - indeed we have seen evidence of a number of protests.
Public gatherings of any sort pose a high risk of disease transmission and protests risk developing into more violent disorder.
In South Africa, the nature of the regulations and the manner in which they have been enforced risks alienating certain sections of the public with a risk of increased offending and widespread non-compliance.
How then might the government improve matters? The ban on exercise outside the home and sale of cigarettes seem counter-productive and should perhaps be repealed.
Strict enforcement of the regulations needs to be relaxed in favour of a more nuanced response, where force should be a last resort and authorities are more accepting of the difficulties many have in complying.
Finally, instead of expecting blind compliance with regulations the government should instead engage with communities to identify challenges to compliance and co-create solutions that the community can achieve.
Ultimately, a supportive environment where the government works with the citizens is the best
way to mitigate the risks that Covid-19 represents.
* Professor Roberts is a consultant in health security and policing with the World Health Organization, professor and chair of policing and criminal justice at Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia, and a senior research associate of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at the University of Johannesburg.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.