Includes bibliographical references.
Contents
Part one: Constructing insecurity in South Africa -- Part two: The regulation of protests under Jacob Zuma -- Part three: The securitisation of the state and press transformation -- Part four: The securitisation of information and communication technologies in South Africa -- Conclusion: securitisation, desecuritisation.  

Jane Duncan’s recently published book The Rise of the Securocrats (2014), documents the alarming expansion of authority of the securocrats in South Africa, the increasing political influence amongst this group (which should have limited, if any, political decision making responsibility within a democracy), which is then directly paralleled to an inverted decrease in accountability and transparency for the security cluster. Duncan (2014:44) calls this ‘transparent as mud’. In South Africa, the intelligence services, including the State Security Agency, have adopted a default position of secrecy (and by effect, non-transparency and non-accountability) rendering these institutions immune to public scrutiny or open debate.
Security clusters the world over, ours included, shield themselves from scrutiny by repeating the same tired argument: that to publically disclose any of the above would threaten ‘national security’. This is hogwash and drivel. It’s a weak argument because asking for the financial reports and budgets of a publically-funded state institution for the purpose of accountability to citizens is hardly the same thing as asking for the blueprints of a South African military base (if that really is what they don’t want us to know) or the precise daily operations of the President’s personal protection unit (who would want to know that? other than perhaps his wives, one of whom reportedly tried to kill him).
http://www.journalism.co.za/blog/combating-culture-secrecy-south-africa-right2know-campaign/