Social Equality Versus Combat Effectiveness:

An Institutional challenge for the military

By Lindy Heinecken Centre for Military Studies, University of Stellenbosch

Published in African Security Review Vol 7 No 6, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Since the end of the Cold War, the South African armed forces have not only had to redefine their role and transform their structures to meet the demands of the new security environment, but also have had to respond to pressures from society at large to conform to civilian values. In this regard, the impetus for greater egalitarianism, political democracy and protection of basic human rights generated by the new Constitution, has had a profound impact on the Department of Defence (DoD).

In many respects, armed forces are ‘Janus-faced’ organisations. On the one hand, they have to build and maintain an effective military organisation that can respond to the changing strategic environment and, on the other, they have to be responsive to the demands of wider society.1 The same applies to the debate on social equality2 versus combat effectiveness.3 The Bill of Rights, included in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996,4 stipulates that equality and equal opportunities must be afforded to all persons or groups or categories of persons. Unfair discrimination, whether directly or indirectly on any grounds, particularly that of "race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth is prohibited." The challenge faced by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), is how to balance the social pressures to maintain a socially representative and responsive military establishment with the organisational requirements to maintain combat effectiveness.

This article strives to determine the impact of the equality clause on the DoD, with specific reference to the provisions pertaining to race, gender and sexual orientation. The integration of each of these previously disadvantaged groups,5 has raised quite different equity and fairness issues, all of which seem to be weighed against their impact on military or combat effectiveness. For race, the issue is representivity versus competency; for women, their suitability for combat; and for homosexuals, the effect they will have on discipline, cohesion and morale.

The aim of this article is to determine the validity of these arguments with respect to race, gender and sexual orientation by examining past and current policy, the attitudes towards these issues and finally, whether the quest for equality could undermine the combat effectiveness of the SANDF.

THE NEED FOR RACIAL REPRESENTIVITY

Because of the control which the armed forces have over the means to mass destruction, most countries require their armed forces to be broadly representative of the populace. Over-representation of one ethnic group could imply control of the defence force and unprecedented power in the hands of a specific segment of society. The implication for the legitimacy of the armed forces is that the minorities or even majorities invariably regard such imbalances as inimical to their political power and safety.6 This becomes even more of an issue where there is ethnic-racial tension within the society and where the defence force is deployed in an internal role against the ethnic group that is under-represented.7

In South Africa, many years of enforced discriminatory policies have resulted in a lack of racial representivity within the ranks of the former South African Defence Force (SADF). Although Africans were more actively recruited during the seventies — a trend which increased steadily in the eighties — they served in limited capacities in the lower ranks. Even with the integration of the predominantly African homeland and non-statutory forces into the SANDF, which came into being in April 1994, the DoD still does not reflect the demographic composition of South African society (see Diagram 1).

Diagram 1: Demographic representation of SA Population and the Department of Defence by home language8

Using home language as an indicator of ethnic representation, it is clear that Afrikaans and English speakers — predominantly white home languages — are still over-represented in the DoD when compared to the broader South African population. Of interest is that Northern Sotho and Tswana speakers are fairly well represented in the DoD, compared to Xhosa and Zulu language groups which are significantly under-represented. An explanation may be that the main recruiting centres are in Gauteng, a region mostly inhabited by Northern Sotho and Tswana ethnic groups. In this regard, Khanyile’s9 caution may be valid, that the SANDF should revisit its recruitment strategies and should be sensitive not only to racial, but also to ethnic imbalances if it is to be truly representative.

PAST AND PRESENT POLICY

Given the imbalances that exist in racial representation, the White Paper on Defence made a specific announcement that the SANDF should be broadly representative of the South African population. Representivity refers to the racial and gender composition, as well as the fair integration of the constituent integrating forces at ‘all ranks’ within the organisation.10

Active steps are currently being taken to overcome the past legacy of racial and gender discrimination. Significant advances have already been made in this respect if one compares the racial composition on 27 April 1994 with that on 1 April 1998 (see Diagram 2). This will become even more so if future projections are correct. It is estimated that Africans will comprise 65 per cent of the future force, whites 24 per cent, coloureds 20 per cent and Asians 1 per cent, after the rationalisation process is completed.

Diagram 2: Racial representation in the Department of Defence for 1994, 1998 and future projection11


However, the racial representation is not evenly reflected within the various rank structures. For example, in April 1998, 71,2 per cent of the officer corps was white, compared to 23,4 per cent black, 0,6 per cent coloured and 4,8 per cent Asian. In the senior officer ranks from major to general, the situation is worse. In these rank groups, whites represent 81,6 per cent of senior officers, Africans 15,3 per cent, coloureds 2,8 per cent and Asians 0,3 per cent. The non-commissioned officer (NCO) ranks were almost evenly divided between Africans and whites (although whites still dominate the NCO senior ranks), but privates are overwhelmingly African (almost 89 per cent). Whites represent a mere 4,5 per cent of privates, an indication that a lower percentage of this population group is volunteering for military service.12

Even in the SA Army, which integrated the largest number of predominantly black non-statutory and homeland defence force members, there is an estimated surplus of 3 565 whites in the rank groups from staff sergeant to general, but a shortage of 1 599 Africans.13

However, the need for representivity for the sake of legitimacy has to be balanced with the need for a combat effective force. As Matanzima states, "representativeness is not an over night exercise, except if you are prepared to vastly lower your standards and your operational preparedness."14 The competency and effectiveness of the SANDF could be undermined in the process.

REPRESENTIVITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

To cope with this challenge, the DoD’s Equal Opportunities (EO) and Affirmative Action (AA) programmes have sought to develop previously disadvantaged members with the potential without undermining the morale of military personnel or compromising internationally accepted standards of professionalism, proficiency and safety. The approach has been that standards will not be compromised, but that those with potential must be given every opportunity to achieve those standards. Bridging and supplementary programmes have been designed to empower members, irrespective of origin, to have an equal chance to demonstrate their suitability for the rank and mustering to which they aspire.

To improve representivity, identified persons with the given potential are being ‘fast-tracked’ through the ranks. This refers to the accelerated advancement of members by giving them preferential access to courses necessary for promotion and appointment to higher posts.15 The aim is for all members to meet the various course requirements of their particular rank group before being substantively appointed in a particular post.

The problem with rapid promotion in rank, however, is that it inevitably results in a compromise of standards in some way or another. On average, it takes up to seventeen years to reach the rank of colonel, and 24 years to attain the rank of brigadier.16 The posts associated with these ranks require that incumbents do not only have the necessary education, training or course qualifications, but also extensive practical experience in a variety of roles, as these command positions are responsible for the day-to-day management of the armed forces.17

In a survey conducted by the Centre for Military Studies during 1996, 79 per cent of the predominately white officer corps were of the opinion that AA undermined the competency and effectiveness of the SANDF. This view was most strongly held by white officers.18 Similar responses were received from members throughout the DoD in an EO and AA audit conducted by the Military Psychological Institute (MPI). The findings revealed that Asian, African and coloured respondents were positive about the potential success and value of AA, while white respondents were overwhelmingly negative.19

A more recent survey, conducted by the DoD’s Section: Effect Analysis in 1998, of attitudes relating to representivity, effectiveness, affirmative action and racism, revealed some interesting findings.

Table 1: Attitudes towards representivity, effectiveness, affirmative action and racism in the Department of Defence20
No
Unsure
Yes
Variable
%
n
%
n
%
n
Is it possible to create a representative DoD/SANDF without compromising efficiency?
39
1 690
8
372
53
2 346
Do you see affirmative action as a problem area in the transformed SANDF?
46
1 981
4
152
50
2 139
Do you see racism as a problem in the SANDF
24
966
4
176
72
2 916

Based on the responses to the questions posed in this survey, the majority of respondents felt that it was possible to create a DoD that is representative of the population without compromising efficiency. The attitude towards AA was equally divided and no significant differences were found when correlated by home language as an indicator of race. However, racial tensions seem to be the main problem area in the future, and negative attitudes towards AA, which targets mainly Africans and women, are probably linked to entrenched stereotypes, rather than to competency alone. These seemingly contradictory findings will need further investigation to provide conclusive answers. What must also be taken into consideration is that certain arms of service are influenced by labour market trends. The Air Force and Navy require persons with skills to fill certain technical musterings that are in short supply. Even with AA, there will be imbalances in certain categories if they are to retain these capabilities.

GENDER EQUALITY IN MILITARY EMPLOYMENT

The quest for gender equality has raised similar, yet different issues of fairness and equity. Many have been sceptical of the increase in the number of women within the armed forces in general, not only in South Africa. Questions which are often raised, include:
  • Will combat readiness not be sacrificed in favour of an ill-conceived social experiment?

  • Can women be a combat-effective component of the armed forces?

  • Will the employment of women in combat roles not involve an unacceptable adjustment to the pressures from civilian society at the expense of operational effectiveness?21

PAST AND PRESENT POLICY

The debate concerning women in the armed forces is less about female force strengths, than about limitations placed on their utilisation in certain fields or musterings. In the former SADF, for example, women were not appointed in any position which could result in close combat or direct enemy fire, or which entailed a substantial risk of capture, or even in positions of foreign exposure. Their functional role was limited to supportive musterings such as finance, logistics, intelligence, medical services and welfare.22

These restrictions were removed in 1994, in line with the constitutional provisions which forbid discrimination on the grounds of race or gender. Military policy guidelines were issued to allow women to be trained and employed in all ranks and positions, including combat roles. Since then, there has been a slight but significant increase in the number of women in combat positions and at decision-making levels throughout all the arms of service.23 For the first time, women are employed in the rank of general and the percentage of women now serving in uniform24 in the SANDF is one of the highest in the world at 13 per cent (9 441 out of 72 695). Of interest is the fact that there were virtually no African women in the senior ranks of either the non-statutory forces or the homeland forces which were integrated into the SANDF.25 With regard to women in combat positions, it is difficult to determine how many actually serve in this capacity. But women have recently been integrated into the infantry, artillery and the armoured corps of the SA Army, and now serve as pilots in the SA Air Force and on ships in the SA Navy.26

The DoD acknowledges and entrenches the right of women to serve in all ranks and positions and is committed to increase the number of training facilities for women in all musterings and specialised fields.27 Despite the formal provisions stipulating that women have an open career path in the military, there is still some resistance to women serving in combat positions both within the SANDF and among the general populace.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN IN COMBAT

In the 1996 omnibus survey conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council and the Institute for Security Studies, the question whether "women should be allowed to volunteer for combat duty", elicited a 48 per cent response against women serving in combat positions, compared to 46 per cent of respondents who expressed themselves in favour. Whites were by far the most supportive of women in combat roles (60 per cent), followed by Asians (47 per cent), Africans (45 per cent) and coloureds (37 per cent). Responses showed an insignificant difference by gender, with females slightly more in favour (48 per cent) than males (46 per cent).28

Similar responses were received from SANDF officers who were questioned whether "women should be allowed to do combat duty in the frontline", in a survey conducted by the Centre for Military Studies (Cemis) during the same period.29 In this survey, 48 per cent of officers were against women serving in combat roles, while 40 per cent supported the view of women in the front-line. Significant differences of opinion were found among the various arms of service. Most of the Army and Medical Service officers were opposed to women serving in combat positions in the front-line. Air Force officers were clearly divided on the issue, while Naval officers were markedly more supportive. The difference in attitude towards women among the various arms of service probably relates to the diverse specialisations within the services and the nature of combat on land, air and sea. In the Army, a higher premium is placed on physical strength, aggression and hand-to-hand combat, compared to combat at a distance which characterises the other two arms of service.30

The debate on the utilisation of women in the front-line is focused on two issues. These are, firstly, whether women should be permitted to serve in combat roles, and secondly, whether they can be effectively utilised in such positions. In this respect, the survey conducted by the Section: Effect Analysis in July 1998 showed an increase in the acceptance of gender equality in the DoD. Respondents were asked to comment on whether it was possible to apply gender equality strictly in the DoD/SANDF, without compromising the efficiency/combat effectiveness of the SANDF. The responses are reflected in Table 2.

Table 2: Is it possible to apply gender equality without compromising combat effectiveness?31
No
Unsure
Yes
Gender
%
n
%
n
%
n
Male
Femal
Total
36
34
35
1 256
303
1 559
4
6
5
156
56
212
60
60
60
2 107
529
2 636
Language
%
n
%
n
%
n
Afrikaans
English
African
Total
43
39
26
36
802
258
509
1 569
5
5
5
5
5
92
34
88
214
52
56
69
59
954
372
1 327
2 553

These findings show that the majority of respondents felt that the utilisation of women in combat roles would not undermine the combat effectiveness of the SANDF. No difference in opinion between males and females was evident. If language classification is used as an indicator of race, those with one of the indigenous African languages as home language felt more strongly that gender equality had no impact on combat capability, than those who indicated languages traditionally spoken by whites and coloureds.

WOMEN AND COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

The proof of effectiveness is ultimately linked to job performance and, with combat, can only really be tested at the time. To date, there is no evidence to suggest that women are not as effective as men in combat, although there are many arguments claiming the contrary.

Those taking a biological stance, assert that the combat performance of women is inhibited by ‘gynaecological’ realities, their lack of physical strength, higher fat ratio and smaller lung capacity.32 They become exhausted sooner than men, take longer to regain their full strength and, consequently, cannot cope with the physical demands of combat. The counter-argument is that technological advances have led to a relative decline in the emphasis placed on physical prowess and aggression as factors essential for military effectiveness.33 Setting physical strength selection criteria to unreasonable levels so that women are intentionally excluded, could be considered an unfair discriminatory practice.

Another argument frequently raised against women in combat units, is that they undermine male bonding and cohesion. The view is expressed that the presence of women in a combat unit will result in males, by virtue of their view of the role of women as wives, mothers and girlfriends, become overprotective towards females at the expense of operational effectiveness. However, recent experiences have indicated that the inclusion of women in a unit does not adversely affect unit cohesion or male bonding, provided that there is a commitment at leadership level to ensure that close fraternisation between ranks and sexual harassment do not occur.34

A more realistic concern is the risk of possible abuse by hostile captors. In such cases, women’s role in the front-line could justifiably be restricted, but supporting units could also be overrun and captured. During the Persian Gulf war, for example, an Iraqi missile hit a barracks well behind enemy lines, causing the largest number of war casualties from any single incident.35

Besides the argument of the possible abuse of women by hostile captors (which is more based in compassion, than focused on effectiveness), none of the arguments thus far advanced are sufficient grounds for excluding women from combat roles. There also appears to be a dearth of scientific research on whether women can play a combat-effective role in the armed forces.

THE CHALLENGES OF GENDER EQUALITY

The drive for gender equality within the armed forces raises a number of more complex institutional challenges. The considerable issues which are as yet unresolved for military women in this decade, do not only entail combat exclusion (where this still exists), but also pregnancy and child-care, all of which affect their utilisation in the military. According to Shields,36 pregnancy and child-care are the two most controversial and emotional issues associated with female integration, particularly in combat support and combat service support roles due to the implications for deployability. Although women are not a burden in most jobs, their employment in the military, from a strict deployment point of view, does present a problem. The mixing of motherhood and a military career is most difficult in work environments and positions with unconventional hours and long trips away from home.

This becomes even more critical with the growing number of single parent families and the lack of child-care facilities. Even though the DoD’s policy, for example, states that it "shall not terminate the employment of any women employed in the DoD on account of pregnancy, irrespective of her marital status ... [or] discriminate against pregnant women as regards academic training, promotion and career development on account of pregnancy, [and that] a women shall not be demilitarized or civilianised, or be unfairly transferred on account of her pregnancy", the lack of child care facilities will continue to be an impediment to female career advancement.37 Analyses of attrition and re-enlistment trends in other countries have shown that one of the major reasons why women leave the service, is the difficulty in keeping up with the demands of motherhood and military life. Much of the investment made by the institution to train women is lost due to a lack of adequate child-care facilities.

Another issue frequently raised is that of sexual harassment. Harassment refers to discrimination based on offensive, abusive, derogatory or threatening conduct directed at an individual or specific group of persons as a result of real or perceived attributes or differences. Such attributes may concern gender, race, disability, sexual orientation or age. Sexual harassment is intimidation through reference to a person’s sexuality. This is considered to be one of the potentially most debilitating obstacles faced by women in the military, especially if they are excluded from meetings or training opportunities, or the integrity of senior/ subordinate relationships is undermined. Although sexual harassment may apply to all sexual orientations, for women it is essentially due to their small numbers and their encapsulation in gender stereotyped roles.

This being said, the DoD has acknowledged that sexual harassment impacts negatively on mission readiness and policy is currently being formulated on how do deal with this issue.38

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

As with gender integration, recent reforms in policy towards homosexuals in the military have also focused on the supposed link between homosexual integration and operational effectiveness. There are those who claim that "the combat effectiveness of this specialised society [the military] will be weakened by the integration of homosexuals", as homosexual behaviour is seen to be incompatible with military service.39

PAST SADF POLICY

Many of the arguments substantiating the impact of homosexual behaviour on military effectiveness were articulated in the SADF Personnel Code, which clearly discriminated against homosexuals. The SADF Personnel Code, Section E/V/XV1, classified homosexuality as sexually deviant and immoral behaviour. Consequently, persons would not be selected as permanent force members of the SADF if they indicated that they were ‘gay’. A standard question on the application form was whether the applicant was a "latent or practising homosexual." If this was declared, such a person was not recruited and, where there was suspicion, the case was referred to the psychologist specifically tasked to look for telltale signs in this regard. Any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s sexual orientation, especially if s/he was destined to be an officer or instructor, would lead to non-appointment.

Where a force member was found guilty of a homosexual act, the person concerned was subject to disciplinary action and, pending the nature or gravity of the misconduct, discharged if found guilty during a court martial. If a member of the permanent force admitted guilt, but there was no evidence of misconduct, the person was sent for rehabilitation. This policy pertained only to permanent force members or service volunteers and not to conscripts, as it was believed that the claim of homosexuality would be used to avoid national service. Thus, homosexual conscripts had to be accommodated, but were not appointed in leadership positions or posts where they had access to sensitive information. The general trend was to place such persons in ‘more suitable posts’, such as catering or as medical orderlies.

Although the nature of the rehabilitation programmes is not stipulated in the SADF Personnel Code, recent hearings at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission revealed that a military psychiatrist used electric shocks to reprogramme homosexual force members. During this treatment, members were shown pictures of naked men and women and told to fantasise about them. Shock treatment was applied when pictures of nude men were displayed, and stopped when pictures of naked women were shown, who were then discussed in glowing terms. This process would be repeated three times in a single session. Sessions were held twice a day for three to four days. Although subjects had to give their consent before treatment could occur, most of them were between the ages of eighteen and 24 and still coming to terms with their sexuality.40

PRESENT DoD POLICY

Present policy with respect to the treatment of homosexuals is a virtual reversal of former regulations and is in line with international trends, as well as the provisions stipulated in the Constitution (Section 8 (2)). In the White Paper on Defence, the DoD declared that it will operate strictly within the parameters of the Constitution with respect to human rights and non-discrimination against personnel on the grounds of their sexual orientation.41 Discrimination on the grounds of homophobia and/or heterosexism, whether overt or covert, is prohibited, as well as its condoning by any person. The Equal Opportunities Policy of the DoD also stipulates that awareness and educational programmes with respect to heterosexism and homophobia, are implemented in order to eliminate prejudices.42 Harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation will not be tolerated and mechanisms are to be established to deal with such incidences.

Current regulations do not discriminate in any way on the grounds of sexual orientation and recruiting centres do not question an applicant’s sexual preference. This approach is based on the principle that personnel are recruited who can fulfil certain management requirements to render specific services. The position will be offered to the candidate who best meets all the requirements and sexual orientation is not a consideration in relation to posting or career development opportunities. The emphasis is placed on the most suitable candidate to render the service required. The SANDF has no concern with the sexual activities of its members, provided that they are not unlawful and not contrary to, or inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the SANDF, namely military effectiveness, the preservation of group cohesion, respect for command relations, collective discipline and the maintenance of morale.

Unacceptable sexual behaviour that undermines discipline would result in disciplinary action against both heterosexual and homosexual members. While no action will be instituted against a member of the SANDF for being a homosexual, the policy still remains that any sexually atypical or immoral behaviour that could detrimentally affect esprit de corps or morale, or cause emotional stress, thereby affecting military discipline or effectiveness, is subject to disciplinary action. The perpetrator may be punished with detention, or may be reprimanded, fined or discharged.43 The Military Disciplinary Code of the SANDF is currently under total revision to ensure that it complies with the Constitution.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS

Even though homosexual men and women are in principle fit for military service, many still consider persons with a homosexual orientation to be less suited for duty in the military than heterosexuals. The arguments are based primarily on the effect that homosexuals may have on troop discipline, morale and cohesion. These were the same concerns that led to the restrictions and sanctions applied to homosexuals in the SADF.

One such argument concerns the utilisation of homosexuals in leadership positions. According to Fleckenstein,44 homosexual military personnel are not suited to positions of command or to instruct troops, because of the prejudices still widely held against them. The concern is that the authority of the person as unit leader or instructor will be impaired if it is known that s/he has homosexual tendencies, which will, in turn, affect troop discipline, cohesion and morale.

The Federal Administrative Court in Germany found that homosexuality represents an ‘aptitude deficiency’ which is sufficient grounds for upholding the right of the military as an employer to refuse to allow homosexual military personnel to function in command positions and as trainers and instructors.45 This argument is based on evidence, among others, that homosexuals have higher suicide and alcohol abuse rates than heterosexuals, and are mentally less suited to these positions.46

Given these factors, many choose not to reveal their sexual orientation if it may impede career advancement. A concern is that such persons can easily be intimidated, blackmailed or manipulated by those who wish to expose their sexual identity. Consequently, homosexuals have been considered to be ‘national security risks’ because of their susceptibility to blackmail or threat of exposure.47 This presents an ambiguous situation where, on the one hand, a person who conceals his/her homosexuality, is considered a security risk. On the other, if it is revealed, the argument is put forward that this will create tension within the group and undermine cohesion, as heterosexual people are said to feel ‘physically’ uneasy in the presence of homosexual persons.48 This also has implications for soldier privacy as military leaders may have to decide whether acknowledged homosexual military personnel can share barracks rooms, or even be assigned to the same squad or team.49

One of the main concerns with the liberalisation of gay rights in the military, is the increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Research has shown that the rates for STDs are twenty to 25 times higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals, a fact which has implications for the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the precursor to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).50 The implication is that such members may not be psychologically or physically fit to fight. Of interest in this regard, is that 79 per cent of AIDS cases reported among whites in South Africa, were transmitted by homosexual or bisexual contact, compared with 64 per cent of African cases which are said to have been transmitted by heterosexual contact.51

FUTURE CHALLENGES

Besides many of the ‘homophobic’ arguments against homosexuals in the military that claim that they will undermine military effectiveness, there are still legal impediments that restrict fair and equal treatment of homosexual persons in South Africa. Despite constitutional provisions that enshrine the freedom of sexual orientation, sodomy is still a crime and gay and lesbian marriages remain illegal. This has implications for the DoD, in that housing and home loan applications based on same sex relationships are not accepted. Area-bound transfer applications based on same sex couple considerations are also not accepted, nor do spousal benefits apply, such as medical aid and pensions. The failure to extend marriage to homosexuals negates the essential nature of the right to equality, since it is from this legal sanction that many benefits are derived.52 The common-law definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples from family status is thus not in keeping with the democratic values of the new South Africa.

Once this is revised, the SANDF will have to consider military housing for eligible homosexual couples. This raises yet another set of challenges, such as how these couples will be integrated into the closed military community, especially one which still views homosexuality as abhorrent behaviour which would be a bad influence on their children. Even more so, the conduct of military marriages ‘under the swords of honour’ for such couples, and their attendance of military functions would also have to be dealt with.

Apart from the possible impact which homosexuals may have on combat effectiveness, the equal dispensing of rights to homosexuals is likely to pose its own unique challenges to traditional military culture

CONCLUSIONS

The military is a discriminating organisation. It routinely discriminates against whole categories of individuals, against the physically handicapped, against the utilisation of women in combat roles, against women who are pregnant, and against homosexuals. It places certain age limits on posts, demands certain physical and mental capabilities for selection and many such requirements. These limitations are instituted for the sake of combat effectiveness and hence, the demand for equality by society poses a challenge to the organisation.
The Department of Defence has the discretionary power to decide whom they wish to appoint, and can discriminate against certain groups if such a discrimination is fair and justifiable for the sake of both organisational and combat effectiveness. However, it has stated quite categorically in its Equal Opportunities and Affirmative Action policies, that it will be governed by "equity, equality and non-discrimination."53 This raises unique equity and fairness challenges.

Although many of the arguments that have routinely led to the exclusion of certain racial groups from the military relate more to concerns of legitimacy, this also has a bearing on effectiveness in South Africa, given past discriminatory practice. As an organisation with tremendous power at its disposal, it is vitally important that the military is seen to be representative of the broader population. However, representivity and employment equity are difficult to achieve in the military profession which requires lengthy training and education to progress through the various ranks. Rapid promotion to correct past racial imbalances is invariably associated with a decline in standards, which ultimately affect efficiency. Although active steps are being taken to achieve representivity without undermining standards, the concern has been expressed that the DoD’s AA policy may have a negative impact on the competency of the SANDF. Whether this is in fact so, or merely an opinion generated by racial insecurity, is difficult to determine. There are many other factors, such as the exodus of experienced instructors and officers, budgetary constraints and ageing equipment, that possibly have a greater impact on combat effectiveness.

However, the perceived increase in racism is cause for concern. The DoD faces the challenge of having to manage the deeply entrenched ethnic and racial tensions and insecurities brought about by affirmative action. This is possibly more detrimental to cohesion and the future effectiveness of the SANDF than anything else.

Gender equality within the SANDF has not solicited much debate and the liberal gender policies with respect to the utilisation of women in combat positions, have evoked little controversy. Although opinion is divided on whether women should serve in combat roles, the prevailing sentiment is that they should be employed in any post for which they meet the requirements, in the absence of any conclusive proof that women are not suitable for these roles.

This raises the issue of job requirements and the physical standards required for specific posts. A job analysis or assessment will have to be undertaken to determine whether the physical criteria used for selection are relevant to the task to be performed. Other challenges posed by gender equality are the issues of child-care facilities and sexual harassment. A more supportive environment for women could enhance their utilisation, while specific programmes and directives dealing with sexual harassment, and better matching of physical capabilities with jobs, will do much to improve gender equality in the SANDF.

In comparison with European countries, the debate on ‘lifting the ban’ on homosexuals in the SANDF has been virtually non-existent. A possible explanation is that the DoD is pre-occupied with the racial challenges which faces it, and the relative silence of the pro-gay lobby in South Africa. The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality did submit proposals to the DoD of which most have been accommodated.54 Nonetheless, it is yet to be seen to what extent the DoD will uphold and actively promote the right to equality of treatment and opportunity of homosexual military personnel. There are some concerns with respect to the impact that homosexuals may have on loyalty, discipline and cohesion, but these could most probably be effectively dealt with in regulations which apply equally to everyone within the military establishment. But, a decrease in hostile attitudes to homosexuality is not the same as an increase in social acceptance, even more so in an institution steeped in tradition.

Like any organisation, the SANDF must respond and adapt to the pressures imposed upon it by broader society if it is to maintain its effectiveness. While the Department of Defence has risen boldly to the challenges posed by our new democracy, it still faces many obstacles with respect to the implementation of its liberal policies on equality, which in future, may prove to be a greater challenge to organisational effectiveness, than to combat effectiveness per se.

ENDNOTES

This article is a modified version of a paper presented at the South African Political Science Association Research Colloquium, University of Pretoria, Hammanskraal Campus, 9-11 September 1998.
  1. C Dandeker, New times for the military: Some sociological remarks on the changing role and structure of the armed forces of the advanced societies, British Journal of Sociology, 45(4), December 1994, p. 639.

  2. Social equality refers to the existence of socially created inequalities based on biological characteristics or cultural norms and values, that serve as a basis to grant some groups privileges to the prejudice of others. See M Haralambos & M Holborn, Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Collins Education Publishers, Hammersmith London, 1995, p. 23.

  3. Besides technological and physical ability, unit cohesion, discipline and morale are considered essential ‘human’ ingredients of combat effectiveness.

  4. Hereafter, the Constitution.

  5. The term ‘disadvantaged’ refers to "any person or group who have been deprived of rights, career opportunities, education, training or job advancement or have received less beneficial schooling, fewer benefits, less beneficial conditions of service or lower wage rates than any other group or groups on the grounds of race, gender, or disability and/or have been discriminated against by any form of distinction, preference or exclusion or personal treatment that directly or indirectly, restricted development, made separate provision for, or provided less favourable treatment on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability." South African National Defence Force Order (SANDFO), Department of Defence policy on equal opportunities and affirmative action. Issued by General S Nyanda, Chief of the South African National Defence Force, 3 June 1998.

  6. S Baynam, Defence and security issues in a transitional South Africa, International Affairs Bulletin, 14(3), 1990, pp. 9-10.

  7. M B Khanyile, The ethnic factor in the SA National Defence Force: Recruitment strategies revisited, Politeia, 16(1), 1997, p. 78.

  8. SAIRR, 1996/97 Survey, South African Institute of Race Relations, Johannesburg, p. 24; Directorate Personnel Planning, Personnel Division, SANDF.

    * The Race Relations statistics included a category Afrikaans and English spoken equally at home, with a 0,19 per cent response which was evenly divided between the two categories in order to make comparisons with DoD statistics easier.

    * The Ndebele language group represents both Northern and Southern Ndebele.

    * For DoD, the ‘other’ categorisation refers to persons whose home language classification is not recorded on their personnel records.

    * SA Population statistics includes, among others, Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, French, Tamil, Hindu, Telegu, Gujarati, Urdu and Chinese.

  9. Khaniyle, op. cit., pp. 90-93.

  10. Department of Defence, White Paper on National Defence: Defence in a Democracy, DoD, Pretoria, 1996, p. 32.

  11. Defence Review, Defence Review Work group, Department of Defence, 28 April 1998, p. 130.

  12. Ibid., pp. 110 & 130.

  13. See T T Matanzima, The changing SA Army: Human resource challenges, paper presented at the conference on the SA Army in Transition: Continuity and Change, Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria, 11 June 1998, Appendix B.

  14. Ibid., p. 8.

  15. A review of integration, Department of Defence Bulletin, 38/98, 25 June 1998.

  16. L du Plessis, Democratisation and present military trends: Some observations, paper read at the conference of the South African Political Science Association (Sapsa), Bloemfontein, 20-22 October 1993, p. 17.

  17. L Nathan, The changing of the guard. HSRC, Pretoria, 1994, p. 141.

  18. L Heinecken, Inequality and diversity: SANDF officers’ attitudes towards integration, affirmative action, gender and language, paper read at the South African Sociological Association Congress, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, 30 June -3 July 1998.

  19. Military Psychological Institute, Results of the study on Equal Opportunities and Affirmative Action in the DoD, April 1998, p. 6.

  20. Section: Effect Analysis, Department of Defence.

  21. P M Shields, Sex roles in the military, in C Moskos & F Wood (eds.), The military more than just a job?, Pergamon-Grasseys, International Defence Publishers, p. 99; C Dandeker & M Segal, Gender integration in armed forces: Recent policy developments in the United Kingdom, Armed Forces and Society, 23(1), Fall 1996, p. 41.

  22. J Cilliers, C Schutte, L Heinecken, I Liebenberg & B Sass, Public attitudes regarding women in the security forces and language usage in the SANDF, African Security Review, 6(3), 1997, p. 6.

  23. In the past, the main motivation for allowing women to serve in the military in South Africa was the shortage of white males. Women were identified as an under-utilised source of high quality manpower. Of late, the utilisation of women centres on the increasing demand for gender equality.

  24. These figures pertain only to women serving in the SANDF. For the entire Department of Defence, this is approximately 19 per cent.

  25. Statistics obtained from the Directorate Personnel Planning, SANDF Personnel Division, Pretoria.

  26. See J Modise, Address by the Minister of Defence, Defence Budget Vote, National Assembly, 27 May 1998.

  27. SANDFO, op. cit., p. 10.

  28. Cilliers et al., op. cit., p. 6.

  29. Heinecken, op. cit.

  30. Dandeker & Segal, op. cit., p. 41.

  31. Section: Effect Analysis, Department of Defence. For language calculation, the category ‘other’ was excluded.

  32. British Military Studies Group, Women in the armed forces: Britain in comparative perspective, conference report, British Military Studies Group and the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, 3-4 December 1991, p. 3.

  33. Dandeker & Segal, op. cit., p. 38.

  34. L Rosen & L Martin, Sexual harassment, cohesion and combat readiness in US Army support units, Armed Forces and Society, 24(2), Winter 1997, p. 239.

  35. Shields, op. cit., pp. 108-109.

  36. D Armour, Race and gender in the US military, Armed Forces and Society, 23(1), Fall 1996, p. 8.

  37. SANDFO, op. cit., p. 11.

  38. Ibid., p. 8.

  39. L Maginnis, A case against the lifting the ban on homosexuals, Army, January 1993, p. 38.

  40. Commission to hear of electric shock therapy for gay conscripts, The Star, 17 June 1997, p. 7.

  41. Sexual orientation refers to the sexual disposition and identity of human beings. Included under this definition are heterosexuals, homosexual lesbian and gay people, bisexual and trans-gendered persons.

  42. SANDFO, op. cit., p. 12.

  43. Steyn, op. cit., p. 67.

  44. B Fleckenstein, Homosexuality and military service in Germany, SOWI-Arbeitspapier, 48, München, October 1993, p. 7.

  45. Ibid.

  46. Maginnis, op. cit, p. 39.

  47. G B Lewis, Lifting the ban on gays in the civil service: Federal policy toward gay and lesbian employees since the Cold War, Public Administration Review, 57(5), September/October 1997, p. 388.

  48. Fleckenstein, op. cit., p. 11.

  49. Maginnis, op. cit., p. 38.

  50. Ibid.

  51. SAIRR, op. cit., p. 459.

  52. B Grant, Comments on cases on same-sex marriage, South African Journal of Human Rights, 12(4), 1996, p. 572

  53. SANDFO, op. cit., p. 8.

  54. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality, Second draft paper on sexual orientation issues in the Defence human resource chapter, paper submitted to the Defence Review Human Resources Sub-committee Drafting Group, 15 November 1996.