THE MILITARIZATION OF POLITICS

Apr 13, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A central tenet of military-civil(ian)  relationship in democracies is that the military is subservient to civilian rule. Attending to the affairs of the State is the responsibility of civilians. Military personnel are not expected to trespass on this responsibility. This is the cardinal principle which has prevented military rule for the greater part of the independent history and for most of the countries of the English speaking Caribbean.
Guyana from 1970 onwards perverted this role when the society became increasingly militarized. The PNC regime established a number of military and paramilitary organizations bringing under military control a relatively large percentage of the population. Guyana therefore is no stranger to a militarized society and to its dangers.
That experience was horrible for both citizens and the military alike. The brave men and women of Disciplined Services were humbled by having to pledge loyalty to the ruling party. Soldiers and police ranks humiliated themselves by having to masquerade at the annual Congress of the ruling party carrying forks and spades, much to the rapturous applause of the delegates gathered there. These organizations were expected to pledge loyalty not just to the government and the State but they were also expected to pledge loyalty to the ruling party.
The military and police in Guyana have been enmeshed into a system that between 1970 and 1986 destroyed their professionalism. The military was complicit in the rigging of elections and in spying on persons opposed to the government. The police was used as an instrument of repression in the society. This task was made easy because of the militarization of the society which took place in those days.
Yesterday, I indicated that I would discuss the implication on civilian- military relations caused by the massive and sudden penetration of the main opposition party in Guyana by ex senior officers of the Disciplined Services. I believe that the rapidity of this penetration is ominous and raises concern as to whether Guyana is entering into a new phase of militarized politics and, if so, the consequences this is going to have for the sustaining and consolidation of democratic rule in Guyana.
The concern expressed over the swiftness with which ex- disciplined officers have been catapulted to positions of authority is no judgment on the integrity and character of the personnel concerned. I am sure that most of these officers are gentlemen and persons of ability. Their character and competence is not being questioned. What is being examined are the implications of such  penetration for that central tenet of military – civilian relationship.
Today I want to examine the precedent that is being set by this penetration. The military in Guyana has never seized political power. It has never shown such ambitions even though after the 1997 elections some senior officers had the temerity to question the legality of swearing in of the then President. That issue was defused but it just shows the potential of divisions and discontent because of domestic political squabbles.
Military personnel are free to support political parties of their choosing. But the involvement of ex- military men in politics should be guided by some convention. There has to be some rules, some conventions developed in respect to the involvement of  ex senior military personnel in partisan politics in order to protect the image of the military establishment and the central tenet of military- civil relationship. It does not present a good precedent for any society when a number of former senior officers of the Disciplined Services suddenly make their entry into partisan politics. And this is not helped when a just retired head of the army endorses a political party shortly after leaving barracks.
We have to be careful of the politics of the country becoming militarized. The militarization of politics has had disastrous consequences around the world. The militarization of politics has been notorious for its viciousness and  abuses of human rights.   Military training has never been proven to be predisposed towards good governance or economic success. There is no established relationship between military involvement in politics and economic success. Even in respect to Chile under Pinochet and Ghana under Jerry Rawlins, the economic growth that was achieved in those countries was despite rather than because of military rule. Guyana needs not look further than its neighbor to the west and to the east to appreciate such dangers.
While it is acknowledged that soldiers can become good politicians, military training in itself brings no special benefits to politics. Indeed one of the concerns is that the military’s hierarchical structure can encourage authoritarian impulses because the structure is one that lends itself to the ethic of persons having to unquestionably obey orders from above.
This is not a judgment of anyone. There is nothing inherently wrong with ex military men entering politics but when this takes place with rapidity and suddenness, it is bound to raise concerns over the possible militarization of politics something that has led to many abuses in many parts of the world. It also blurs the distinction between the barracks and elected office, one that is vitally important in preserving the civilian- military tenet.
To be continued

---

---