SHIFTING DEVELOPMENTAL PRIORITIES

Apr 14, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The politicization of the military can occur as a consequence of the militarization of politics. Or it can be independent of this militarization.
In Guyana strong arguments can be made in either direction.
There is evidence to support the contention that before the society was militarized under the PNC, the military establishment had prior been politicized. This argument starts from the premise that the politicization of the military preceded the militarization of the society.
There is, equally, evidence to support the view that it was the establishment of a number of military, paramilitary and quasi-military entities- The Guyana Defence Force, The Guyana National Service, The Peoples Militia, and The National Guard Service- that ultimately brought the greater part of the society under military influence. This argument is that the militarization of the society was a consequence of the establishment of these military units.
This militarization of the society was always policy driven. It was a deliberate choice. The PNC government had publicly declared its intention to convert every citizen to a soldier.
It was hard escaping the clutches of these military organizations. If you wanted to graduate from the University of Guyana you had to serve a period of compulsory National Service. This ultimately involved a stint at one of the centres in the hinterland.
If you wanted to study overseas on a government scholarship, you had to serve National Service. The training you received at the interior centers, Kimbia and Papaya, was less about acquiring agricultural skills and more about learning military drills, living in a barracks, being trained in the use of a gun and being politically indoctrinated.
These objectives could not have been achieved without a symbiosis between the politicization of the military and the militarization of the society.
This era when the Disciplined Services were turned into the footstool of the then ruling elite, should have impressed on the Disciplined Services the need to protect for the image and reputations of their organizations. It undermines the professionalism and internal cohesion within the Disciplined Services when there is politicization of organizations that form part of the joint services.
But more importantly there is the negative impact for the image and reputation of the Disciplined Services if there should be a sudden and rapid movement of ex- senior officials into partisan politics.
This latter practice has implications for the military. It can politicize the military. The military can then become a nursery for the political ambitions of the officer corps. The military establishment can be used to feather political ambitions
And these ambitions in turn can cause serious problems for the military. It can lead to internal rivalries and divisions within the military. Venezuela is a good case study of what can happen when the military becomes politicized.
Just as it is important to have norms and conventions governing retirees of the Bench, so too it is equally important that there be some conventions to restrict, at least for a specified period just after retiring, ex senior military officials from participating in partisan politics.
The final point I wish to make concerns the implication for developmental priorities of the militarization of politics.
We saw what happened in Zimbabwe when veterans were allowed to pursue a political agenda against those who owned farmlands in that country. The invasion of the farmlands was encouraged. There was little attempt to stop it by the Mugabe government.
The whole developmental equation shifted in that country as a result of the actions of the veterans acting with the support of their political masters. The developmental agenda shifted to satisfy the demands of the veterans.
As a result, that country which was a leading exporter of food suddenly found itself not having enough to feed its people. The developmental priorities had changed and the outcome of this shift was devastating on the country’s economy.
If APNU+AFC win the next elections, it is almost certain that National Service will be reintroduced. It is almost certain also that military spending will increase. It is almost certain that there will be attempts to shift greater welfare benefits to veterans and serving members of the Disciplined Services. It will be almost impossible for APNU to resist not shifting greater benefits to the military establishment and to benefits for veterans. These groupings would have become too important a constituency.
In his book Domination and Power in Guyana, George Danns observed that between 1972 and 1976, military spending increased by more than 500% as compared with a mere 50% for the police. And military spending at one time was over half of the budget for the Disciplined Services, with the police only enjoying 16% of the sum allotted to this sector.
So we have to understand the shift that is likely to take place when politics become militarized. There will be pressures to give greater attention to the needs of the military. Already APNU has promised that it will establish a Veteran’s Commission to look into the well-being of those who have served in the country’s military.
Inevitably the civilian authorities have to concede ground to these demands.

---

---