Your statement would assume work ethos, rubs off and that work ethos is a reason for their success.

Ok if we assume that the prosecution driven setup of the scorpions has no effect whatsoever. I don’t believe this is the case, but let’s assume it for argument’s sake.

We need to look at two major things:
1. Historical precedent: What has happened when more effective units were incorporated into less effective ones. Statistical probability can then help guide the decision.
2. The reasons for the efficacy of the one unit and the lack of it in the other unit needs to be explored. This is required to be able to make a determination of how practically we could expect the one to help the other.

In terms of point 1 it would be difficult for me to find precedents for this, maybe someone else knows how to go about getting this? Although not exactly similar we could look at the success in disbanding specialised units such as the child protection unit. They could serve as examples of how incorporating skills from such units into general policing have affected their efficacy. This can serve as a backdrop in analysing whether skilled personnel uplift or are dragged down. But that is but one aspect.

In terms of point 2 efficacy could be analysed in terms of:
1. Training and skills in police work.
2. Administration.
3. Leadership.
4. Quality of personnel.
5. Motivation or work ethos. (remuneration can fall under this)
(and what else?)

1. If you argue the scorpions will assist the police with their better training and skills. Then why bother a successful unit with this? Rather provide those police officers with the same training.

2. If you argue better administration. Then the police can be trained in that and especially management can be improved by putting better systems in place.

3. If you argue leadership, then I see two options. The scorpions should lead the police, or they should in some way analyse the leadership structures so that it can be duplicated or learned from.

4 . If you argue personnel quality then the police need to look at hiring practices.

5. If you argue motivation. Then they need to look at how to improve motivation, if remuneration plays a role then incorporation won’t solve that in itself, it could rather become a contentious issue. But I don’t see these things just rubbing off. (eg. The whole Batho Pele principles thing did not do much to improve work ethos in the two hospitals my wife worked at.)

The core theme I see is that of management and training. This is not what the scorpions will be doing once incorporated, and is not mainly what they should be doing since they aren’t trained to be trainers but implementors. Unfortunately there are limits to learning from just seeing someone else do something. You don’t have the broader base of knowledge and understanding from which they are making decisions.

So if what the police need is better training, management and administration. Why not duplicate the training and management structures that went into the effective unit? After all they have work to do and can’t become a training facility in themselves, and it is not what they were trained for.

In none of these can I find any argument that the scorpions would become more effective going over to the police. Instead I see them being taxed more with an attempt to uplift the police, and that will affect their efficacy.

You could argue that in disbanding the scorpions you are destroying the very model from which you want to learn.

In all of this the assumption was that their efficacy had nothing to do with the the close work with prosecutors. This is an assumption which is difficult to support, and yet even without it I cannot see this as a move which will somehow, hopefully be for the better.

So without any practical strategic arguments given for the move, but instead other reasonings (apartheid spies, NEC member targeting) serving as the main argument I want to ask a question.

On what practical or strategic basis should we “trust” that this move will rub off on the police and create a better unit? I cannot see anything but blind hope.

Is it impossible that the work ethos that is in th Scorpion would rub off on the SAPS? Would that not be good?

But one can argue that the key to their success was that they worked closely with prosecutors. This factor is being taken away as I understand it.

“more effective”: I don’t see how taking a unit with 90% success rate and incorporating them into one with 10% success is going to make them “more effective”.

It is inconceivable to disband a unit which is highly effective because they have problems. You sort out the problems, no? Wouldn’t THAT make them more effective.

I don’t see how we should just blindly “trust” TM on this one. There is no strategy that has been outlined that could argue for the unit becoming more effective, everything said points to the opposite. Maybe we could trust him if we were given a coherent strategic plan, one which also addresses the current efficacy of the unit and makes some kind of argument for why it would be better.

The “he created them” argument adds no substantive value.

ANC leaders clearly spelled out that the scorpions have to go because they have been infiltrated by apartheid spies and are targeting ANC leadership. TM is there to implement ANC policies as we have been told repeatedly of late. On what basis should we place trust in this new unit?

I think we should let him do that, after all he is the one who created the Scorpions.