There is universal consensus on the need for state insurance in the form of military establishments. As Kenneth Waltz put it, international politics is unpredictable and each state is the final arbiter of its own decisions and actions.
This implies that any state may at any time use force if it values the results more than peace. Therefore, all states must be ready either to counter force with force — or pay the cost of weakness.
The relative efficiency of such military establishments must remain a constant concern of states. So, how have we fared?
In the period before 2010 the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) was plagued by structural and systemic deficiencies. To a large extent, these deficiencies were incubated by a lack of robust executive authority over the military, which is necessary for the formulation and execution of defence policy.
Inevitably, pent-up frustration over a long period of neglect led to behaviour alien to traditional military conduct. We were all ashamed and frightened when police had to use water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse soldiers who staged an illegal march on the Union Buildings in August 2009.
Why rehash an old story? Well, there is political will to address the improvement of soldiers’ working conditions. Primarily, this is necessary to restore pride in answering a patriotic call of duty for an essential service. Without presenting an exhaustive list, the SANDF had to contend with low morale, particularly in the lower ranks, as a result of comparatively low salaries below the level of full colonel. The establishment had infrastructure-maintenance challenges compounded by an ineffective grievance-management system. Further, successive audit qualifications reflected poor management and frustrated efforts to justify the need for additional funding allocations.
Among other things, improvements in working conditions have included competitive remuneration adjustment for lower-ranking soldiers, in some instances by as much as 100%. Necessary legislative amendments have, and will continue to be effected to improve the regulatory framework. Similarly, the National Defence Force Service Commission is being established to deal with matters pertaining to conditions of service.
A department of military veterans exists to look after the interests and welfare of our veterans. Administrative competencies have improved remarkably, with a reduction of recurrent audit qualifications from six to one.
There is a need to change our attitude towards the military and give it the dignity and respect it deserves. There is scope for constructive criticism, but such criticism should suggest practically useful policy proposals. We must value the object of the defence force, which is to defend and protect our republic, its people and territorial integrity.
The military offers many success stories in this regard, not limited to the successes of our peacekeeping efforts and support for democracy on the continent, securing our air space for the success of the 2010 Fifa World Cup, the campaign against rhino poaching, securing borders against illegal activities, humanitarian and disaster relief and the military as the service provider of last resort when all else fails.
Our defence force performs an essential service, a public good not subject to economic perspectives. Internationally, the combat function of the defence force has not been privatised. Change in this regard is inconceivable. This reality underscores the value of the defence function, an essential service that must be readily available. It is our patriotic duty and moral responsibility to support and take pride in our national insurance.
Dr Clarence Tshitereke is chief director for research in the defence ministry