Admin
20 Aug, 2019
Bantu Holomisa’s address at the Colloquium on Civil Military Relations in South Africa
• Honourable Chairperson • Honourable Minister and Deputy Minister • Secretary of Defence • Fellow Committee Members and Parliamentarians • Ladies and gentlemen 1. Thank you Allow me this opportunity to thank our Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, Mr VC Xaba, MP, for the opportunity to address you today. 2. Introduction In a time of war, the politics and society are willing to accept that the military has a just cause and its own set of values and standards, because we believe that they act for a higher good. The majority of the populace is happy to believe that the military is acting on its behalf and that it will do so with honour and justness. We have two familiar examples in our history where this is true: The South African Border War and the Armed Struggle. In both cases “the people”, or at the very least, certain sections of society, approved of, and supported and believed in, those armed actions. However, upon the dawn of true democracy, government was challenged by the necessity to make a paradigm shift, in which the South African National Defence Force simultaneously had to build an institution that is transparent, accountable and representative of the societal demographics. In addition, the former statutory and non-statutory armies had to be moulded into one united force. Both tall orders and as I discovered in my work with the Defence Force Service Commission, we, after 25 years, are still struggling to get right. As a quick example, many defence force men and women, who came from the various former armed forces retained their force numbers. There is no uniformity in the system and it has led to discrimination in promotions. We can, however, all agree that there must be a balance between having a well-funded and strong military to defend the state’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and well-being of its citizenry, and one that is subservient enough to not threaten the state and the people. But most of all, we need to guard against a military that is abused by government to quash dissent and destroy human rights and freedoms. We just have to look at our own history to understand how serious such a situation can be. 3. Parliament and laws keep us from running the risk of repeating the past The relationship between the military and civil society is sometimes a fickle one. On the continent, it has happened that the people look to the military to almost “save” them from the abuse of severe governmental corruption and looting of resources. In South Africa, there has for good reason, been a marked constitutional shift from “doing things the old way”, where military decisions were taken at security council level without consulting parliament. Which, in a certain way, meant that the military held government and the people at ransom. We can be thankful that our constitution now dictates that parliament has an imperative role to play in terms of monitoring our defence force’s readiness and sanctioning military action should the country be in imminent danger. Parliament must be kept abreast of the goings-on in the military, such as budget and operational needs, which talks to civilian oversight in its strongest and purest form. The laws governing the military and defence reviews (1998 and 2012/3) are the tools used to ensure that the civil-military relations in South Africa are healthy, trustable and that this relationship is kept stable and intact. 4. What could the business of the defence force be if we are not at war Not all threats are what we could traditionally consider the business of a defence force. The role of the defence force is not only to protect our people from outside military threats as, sometimes, the problem arises from within our borders. That is why the military should from time to time work in support of the police. Serious crime in various guises threaten the internal safety of our citizens and the security of our country. • There is a form of “economic espionage” where the intellectual property of Denel and Armscor is pillaged. • South Africans with links to foreign countries make use of our porous borders to fuel the drug trade to where it has become a pandemic. • Hijacked vehicles find their way across our borders in a matter of hours. Aside from the obvious role the defence force, for instance, plays in peacekeeping operations and emergency assist in case of natural disasters, it is clear that we need to let our minds go to see where the defence force can also play a meaningful role. 5. Secretary of Defence: is the civilian component inside the department effective? I want to zone into a very specific mechanism of civilian oversight in terms of the department of defence. As the system stands, for day-to-day administration and the coordination of strategic processes, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans relies on the Defence Secretariat; which is the civilian component within the department. The system of having a Secretary of Defence primarily works well in developed countries, which have their own military conscription programmes, which in turn means there is a general understanding of how the military works. There is therefore a deep appreciation for the basic underpinnings of defence, which are speed, control and discipline. Even so, normally, the person who holds the post of Secretary of Defence has likely studied defence as a profession and is steeped in military culture. We need to understand that in a country where this is not the case, this leads to tensions. For instance, during my period of service on the Defence Force Service Commission, many frustrations were registered with us regarding the Secretary of Defence. On our tours across the country, interacting with the defence professionals and military careerists, the delays in decision-making and implementation was a hot topic. Commanders reported that they were constantly embarrassed when they were forced to go to the rank and file to try and explain why certain decisions were not yet implemented. This is not military culture. The Defence Force Service Commission quite often heard of scenarios where the office of the Secretary for Defence was blamed for delays. It seemed to them that the Secretary spent far too much time outside the country, for whatever reason, and was not preoccupied with making the defence force a well-oiled machine. We can all agree that the work of our defence force is by its very nature based on its ability and need to make quick decisions and ensure effective implementation. It is therefore counter-intuitive, that a civilian non-professional would be the lynchpin in this process. As currently implemented, civilian oversight has evolved into the appointment of civilians in the highest decision-making positions in a manner that undermines the ability of the security forces to manage their operations effectively. In my view, we need to take a look at the practicality of the current system of civilian oversight in the department of defence. Do we still need the Secretary of Defence to be an accounting officer? I personally favour that the commander of the defence force plays this role. Civilian oversight can reside with the office of the minister with constant liaison with parliament. Because, after all, how can the Secretary of Defence play the role of oversight and be the accounting officer? It’s just not common sense. In addition, it would be good if the defence force leadership could directly indicate their budgetary requirements to National Treasury. This will go a long way in making it an effective force that can serve this country well, and keep us safe. 6. Closing We can all agree that there is a careful, if not sometimes precarious, balance between the legislature, civil society and the military. Given our country’s history, it is all the more important that we continue to maintain this balance that we have struck over the past 25 years, but we must also be realistic about what works and what does not. It is of no use to cling to that which does not work at the expense of our country’s safety and the ability of the defence force to fulfil its constitutional mandate, in particular that “The defence force must be structured and managed as a disciplined military force”. I thank you.
Admin
28 Oct, 2016
Bridging the gap: advancing civil military relations to deepen democracy
Address by Mr B Holomisa, MP (UDM President) at the Civil Military Relations Conference 2016,CSIR International Convention Centre, Pretoria on 27 and 28 October 2016 · Programme Director, · Chairperson of the Defence Force Service Commission, Professor Van Harte, · Colleagues, · Ladies and Gentlemen 1. Introduction Allow me to join the Chairperson of the Defence Force Service Commission in thanking the sponsors who made this event possible. As I was seated here yesterday, I was reminded of the time in 2009, when our soldiers marched on the Union Buildings. I was called on the day and requested by the President (through the then Minister of Defence, Ms Lindiwe Sisulu) to join other South Africans in trying to solve the problems raised by the aggrieved soldiers. We have travelled a long distance since then. A special word of thanks to our main sponsor, Saab, a Swedish company. As we all know Sweden played a leading role in supporting the struggle to liberate the country. 2.Apartheid and the military of yesteryear Before the dawn of our new democracy, the Apartheid government had readily, and unscrupulously, used its armed forces to implement its schemes against the liberation movements, anti-apartheid activists and the homelands that collaborated with the liberation movements. Heart wrenching testimony at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) revealed that their missions included train massacres, hostel and township violence, the permanent isolation of freedom fighters and the murder of “enemies of the state” such as the Cradock Four. I have personal experience of this and you can Google how many people from the South African security forces of the previous government, testified at the TRC about plots to assassinate me. 3.Civilian oversight in the reconstitution and management of the military after 1994 The amalgamation of the South African Defence Force, the Bantustan security forces, as well as the armed wings of the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and the Inkatha Freedom Party, was challenging in itself. But, because of the Apartheid stigma attached to the military, and other paramilitary organisations, the new government placed disproportionate emphasis on civilian oversight. South Africa ended up with several statutory bodies that form part of civilian oversight, such as: 1. the Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans, 2. the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, 3. the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, 4. the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, 5. our Commander in Chief, the President, 6. Parliament itself, 7. the Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC), 8. the Military Ombud, and then of course 9. the media. We all agree that civilian oversight is essential, but it cannot be at the expense of the safety of South Africa’s borders and our citizens. Indeed, all the aforementioned bodies, must at all times ensure that the SANDF is in a constant state of readiness. This principle is internationally applied. For us, the question should be: is it necessary for an out-and-out civilian to function as the military’s accounting officer as an additional step to safeguard civilian oversight? There are several examples, in other countries, where this works well, but this is because of their culture of conscription. This means that the managers at the helm of the armed forces are steeped in military strategy and administration. This is enforced by the relevant lawmakers who are also products of the practice of conscription. In my view, this arrangement does not work in South Africa. Simple things like, delays in approving requisitions, disagreements on what the necessities are and a Secretary for Defence (SecDef) who is constantly abroad, adversely impacts on the SANDF’s capacity to fulfil its mandate. As a result of delays, and a lack of decisive leadership at SecDef-level, much needed funds are sometimes returned to National Treasury. When we moved around the military bases across the country, as part of our work as the DFSC, we engaged with SANDF personnel. They made it abundantly clear that there is too much bureaucracy involved and that it is in conflict with military culture. Given this situation, Parliament may have to review this area and perhaps consider making the Chief of the SANDF its accounting officer. This will eliminate the situation where Minster has to waste her time to mediate between the SecDef and the SANDF Chief, as she alluded to yesterday. 4. Parliament’s role in civilian oversight All state institutions are accountable to Parliament and it is therefore incumbent upon it to ensure that the SANDF operates within the law and does abuse its power. Parliament’s oversight work, however, does not start and end with legislation, it also includes the actual exercise of its influence on the organs of state that fall within this portfolio. It further includes monitoring, investigation and making recommendations on how defence challenges could be addressed. 5.Consultation with Parliament Parliament must demand to be kept abreast of South Africa’s involvement in United Nations and the African Union’s peacekeeping efforts, as well as involvement in conflict situations before troops are deployed. However, instead of being briefed in the House, we read of military deployments in the papers and then, after the fact, Parliamentarians would get the information in annual reports. This is not good enough. To make matters worse, there are plenty examples where Parliament only gets roped in once things have gone wrong. This happened, for example, when the South African government, in 2013, assisted François Bozizé in the Central African Republic and thirteen of our paratroopers were killed in Bangui. For Parliament to fulfil its oversight mandate, it is important that it has timeous and sufficient information. This demands transparency on the part of the Department of Defence, the Minister and the military’s top brass. Side-lining Parliament is dangerous and it makes accountability impossible. 6.The Arms Deal: As a striking example of the lack of consultation There is a strong impression that the Executive runs roughshod over Parliament. For instance, in 1999, the Department of Finance warned the responsible Cabinet Sub-Committee about the risks involved in the Arms Deal. Yet, they went ahead with the deal, in spite of this sound advice. Parliament was never asked to sanction the deal. It had only exercised its oversight function in relation to the charges of corruption and conflicts of interest around the transactions. Aside from the obvious problems, one also has to consider the ArmsDeal’s shopping list, which consisted of boats, submarines, helicopters and fighter aircraft. These are the tools of the navy and the airforce. Why did the army, which operates on land, not get apparatus such as armoured trucks, personnel carriers and so forth? Because of this ill-advised arms purchase, and constant budget cuts over the years, the army has backlogs in maintaining and updating their prime mission equipment. On a side note: not only are South Africans still servicing the R70billiondebt, but we must also pay for the costs of the SeritiCommission of Inquiry that amounted to almost R140million. 7.Dissatisfaction within the SANDF Tension between defence management and military unions must be speedily alleviated. Parliament, as part of its oversight function, has a responsibility to harmonise these relationships. Parliamentarians should also be concerned that, on the one hand, troops complain about commanders and, on the other hand, commanders complain about the lack of disciple within the ranks. The conditions of employment of our servicemen and women are not up to scratch. There is a constant stream of complaints about the state of their equipment and poor training. Parliament has a role to play in addressing these matters. 8.The SANDF’s budget There is, what has been described as, a persistent disconnect between the defence mandate, government’s expectations and the allocation of resources. In addition, the Executive and National Treasury should not willy-nilly cut the military budget without applying their minds, because it appears as if there is a lack of understanding of what our defence priorities are. When statements are made such as: the staff complement of the SANDF should be reduced by 10,000 members, one cannot help but wonder on what research such decisions are based. Despite socio-economic conditions, South Africa should earmark at least 2% of its GDP to the defence budget. This is in line with international standards. If the question is asked: “Where should the money come from?”, we just have to think of the fact that government departments wasted R35,2billion (in the 2015/16 financial year) on consultants, travel, catering and entertainment. The call by the Minister of Finance for financial discipline should be heeded and wasteful government spending must be stopped. Political decision-makers should open their ears and listen when our military commanders warn that South Africa’s defence budget is insufficient. Parliament has a role to play in ensuring that the budget is adequate so that our defence requirements are accommodated. 9.Who should champion the SANDF’s cause? Given Parliament’s oversight role, our Members of Parliament (MPs) are the logical people to fulfil this important function. The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans should be more assertive in championing the cause of our servicemen and women. In general, Parliamentarians must familiarise themselves with the challenges that the SANDF face by visiting our military bases. I think they will be shocked to see the state of disrepair of infrastructure and equipment; even looking at simple things such as the habitability of barracks. MPs must also acquaint themselves with the work of the Defence Force Service Commission, so that they can exert pressure on the Minister and the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, to implement the recommendations of the Commission. 10.Conclusion If we are to succeed in bridging the gap and advance civil military relations, in a manner that deepens democracy, we require a collective effort with an unwavering commitment to our country and her people. Thank you
