Violent crime in South Africa is rampant, with the country frequently ranked as one of the most dangerous in the world, as well as among the most unsafe in Africa. Citizens are afraid, and justifiably so, adapting to crime as though it is no longer temporary, but permanent. This fear has for decades quietly been redesigning suburban South Africa.
Across the country, cities are being turned into defended zones as defensive living becomes the norm. Spiked palisade walls, mounted cameras and roaming private security firms are not just a common sight in the country’s suburbs; they are increasingly defining them.
According to Prof. Gideon van Riet from the North-West University’s (NWU) School for Government Studies, this fear of crime is not irrational, but barricaded homes are not addressing the issue. They are displacing it.
“Fear of crime in South Africa is not irrational. Violent crime is a lived reality for many, shaping how people think, move and protect themselves. Fear is reasonable. South Africa has a high crime rate. Crime is often violent, both inside and outside the non-continuous laager,” he explains, referring to the fragmented social boundaries that separate those with access to commercial security infrastructures from those without.
Yet, he argues that the way society interprets and responds to crime may be just as important as crime itself. “The narratives we choose to attach to crime, however, are something we can and should control more carefully and urgently.”
It is a difficult task as, it can be argued, many South Africans have institutionalised attitudes towards this disruptive pandemic. For many, crime is no longer an occasional concern, but a constant factor in how their daily lives are organised.
Routes are planned around perceived danger, certain streets are avoided after dark, and neighbourhood WhatsApp groups function as informal early-warning systems. Security becomes less of a precaution and more of a routine. Fear begins to influence behaviour long before crime itself occurs. People gradually reorganise their lives around the possibility of victimhood, creating habits that become normalised over time.
Cities are turning into fragmented protected zones
He further states that as fear becomes embedded into routine, urban space itself has changed. South African suburbs increasingly resemble fragmented islands of protection, noting how these security infrastructures create what he describes as a “non-continuous laager” — a patchwork of defended spaces rather than a single protected boundary.
“This means suburbs become divided into pockets of access and exclusion. Security infrastructures allow enough integration between those inside and outside the defended zone to maintain an elementary sense of legitimacy, but they also reinforce separation,” he explains.
Inequality and exclusion remain central drivers
While fear shapes behaviour, crime itself cannot be separated from deeper structural conditions. South Africa’s high levels of unemployment, inequality and social exclusion create environments where crime becomes more likely, even necessary for basic survival.
“Crime should not be viewed purely as an individual moral failing. Instead, it is often linked to economic frustration and limited access to opportunity. In contexts where symbols of success are highly visible, but legitimate means of achieving them remain limited, strain and resentment become powerful forces,” he says, pointing to inequality as a critical underlying driver — one that cannot be resolved through walls, alarms or armed response alone.
The unintended consequences of protection
The suburban arms race creates a difficult paradox. As homeowners invest in stronger security, crime is not necessarily eliminated; it may simply move elsewhere.
Van Riet warns that security upgrades can unintentionally redistribute vulnerability. Homes protected by multiple layers of expensive security infrastructure become harder targets, pushing criminal activity towards areas with fewer resources and weaker protection.
“The problem of crime is not resolved. Instead, it is merely moved to those with less access to relatively effective security infrastructures.”
The effects of fear extend beyond architecture and security spending. They also reshape how communities interact, who belongs in certain spaces, and how strangers are perceived.
Prof. van Riet says that suspicion often becomes tied to appearance, movement or perceived belonging.
“People who appear ‘out of place’ may increasingly be viewed as threats rather than fellow residents. This reshaping of public space has wider implications for trust, social cohesion and the shared experience of city life.”
Fear may be reasonable, but its consequences are not neutral
He also makes a distinction between fear itself and what fear produces. While concern about violent crime is understandable, the long-term systems built around fear can deepen fragmentation.
“The growth of private security, surveillance and fortified suburban life may create short-term reassurance, but it also risks reinforcing division. Again, fear is reasonable, but the narratives and structures that grow around fear deserve closer scrutiny.”
What would change look like?
If crime is rooted partly in exclusion and inequality, then long-term solutions require more than individual protection. Prof. van Riet suggests that reducing fear sustainably depends on building stronger social cohesion, improving access to economic opportunity and addressing deep structural divides.
“Crime should be understood as a shared concern rather than a problem divided along class, geography or identity. Greater empathy and support for shared concerns across lines of division are required,” he says, “so that we may one day finally relegate the concept of the laager to the history books.”
The answer to South Africa’s suburban fortifications, which insulate rather than address the issue of crime, is not a call to arms, but a call to understanding. Time will tell which one is heard.
