INTRODUCTION

South African society is at present experiencing an intense period of transition. The values and culture of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), as a sub-set of society, will thus change in accordance with those of society at large. Moreover, the values and culture of the military profession internationally will also have an influence on changes in the SANDF’s culture.

Against this background, the nature of a new culture for the SANDF is considered, with the model below serving as a point of departure. This model is based on the assumption that civilians entering the military contribute their values and culture which, in combination with national culture and the existing military culture in the SANDF, these form the basis for the development of a professional military culture for the SANDF. Two fundamental questions thus need to be answered. In the first place, the military and its constitution need to be defined. It should also be established whether soldiers, sailors and airmen regard their careers as a vocation or as just another employment opportunity. The answers to these questions are proposed to be essential elements in determining the culture of the SANDF in future.

NATIONAL CULTURE

"While military life and military training might neutralise some of the beliefs and values of the society, they cannot be exonerated totally from the military recruits, whether they be officers or non-commissioned officers."1

The manner in which a nation perceives its soldiers has a profound influence on the culture of those soldiers. General factors and international trends that have an impact on perceptions of the military, include:

technology, specifically the sophistication of modern weapons systems, the availability of information and modern communications;



the ‘new world order’;



universal fundamental rights and human dignity as an emerging international value;



the role of the military in the new international system with the new emphasis on security; and



international laws and customs.

Factors specific to South African society that could have an impact on the military, include:

the diversity of the population;



a change from an ‘all white’ conscripted force to a national volunteer force; and



constitutional provisions and fundamental rights, including the right to associate.

MILITARY CULTURE

Military culture is unique in many respects and differs from that of society in general. It remains, however, susceptible to influences from the cultural sphere within which it is situated, as well as the international military culture and traditions. Traditional military values include, amongst others, chivalry, service, duty, honour and courage. Furthermore, the nature of military activities demands high levels of ethics and its complexity requires professionalism.

The former South African Defence Force (SADF), can be characterised as essentially a conventional force with predominantly western traditions and an Afrikaner Calvinistic culture. Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) was a revolutionary force with a developed but divergent political culture, while the TBVC forces had a tradition based on that of the SADF, but with a dominant Afro-centric culture. The integration of these three groups into the SANDF has introduced vastly dissimilar and often dissonant cultures into the equation.

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE MILITARY?

Apart from the mystique often associated with the military, there is an almost divine notion of the soldier, as reflected in the following:

Traditionally, the military was self-sufficient. Once Sir Frances Drake had his ships and ‘military crew’, he needed little more from society. His men were press-ganged into service and claimed their bounty from the defeated enemy to become wealthy. Once General de Wet had his horses, he and his soldiers only required ammunition, much of which they took off the British. Chaka’s impis needed little but their spears. The military had little need for a long ‘support line’. The tooth to tail ratio looked good: ten soldiers to each ‘clerk’. Today, however, the ratio is completely reversed, with ten ‘clerks’ to each soldier in the field. Traditionally, a career in the military implied being a combatant. Today combatants form the minority of people employed by the military. Behind each sailor, infantryman, field gunner or fighter pilot there is a long line of technicians, storemen, administrative clerks and a host of other ‘jokers, janitors and jesters’.

Support for a modern soldier in the field ranges from:

immediate battlefield support, including material (ammunition, food, etc.) and humane support (i.e. medical support); to



second echelon or base support; to



indirect administrative and moral support; and eventually to



distant industrial support.

Logisticians refer to first, second, third and fourth lines or levels of support that form the long line of people and infrastructure set up to provide a soldier with the necessary means to fulfil his or her task. This is primarily as a result of technological developments and is the root of the ‘ten tails to one tooth’ ratio.

DEFINING THE SOLDIER, THE SAILOR AND THE AIRMAN

When considering a military culture for the SANDF, it must be clear to whom such a culture would refer. The categories that can be considered are combatants, everyone wearing a uniform, or everyone working within the defence structures of the Government, whether in uniform or in civilian clothes. If everyone within the defence structures of Government are included in the definition, a rather vague culture will emerge. If everyone in uniform are considered, it will give rise to a culture vastly different from the previous one. In considering combatants exclusively, a more specific culture begins to emerge.

In a study of association and trade union activity, Moskos2 observes that "... non-combat formations are more inclined to adopt practices associated with their counterparts in the civilian labour force due to similarities in the nature of their work than combat formations. Combat elements, who perform military specific tasks, show a greater commitment toward duty, service and military traditions. Consequently, combat elements are less inclined towards any form of unionisation. There is also a greater sense of cohesiveness and brotherhood amongst combat forces." The possible spectrum of what could constitute the military is vast and must be carefully considered or one could fall into the trap of describing the combatant sub-culture within the military in general.

BEYOND OUR BORDERS

Doctrine in South Africa, indeed any sound military strategy, calls for the avoidance of any military operations on ‘home territory’, as it is destructive and innocents often get caught in the cross-fire. Sound military strategy is to fight on enemy territory. In contemplating military culture, it is essential not to accept that military activities are something that happens at home or down the road. Such a culture, and specifically its legal basis must take this into account. It is further important to note the "... general criminal law of our country follows the soldier wherever he may find himself, but how does he maintain his civil and other personal rights when outside the borders of our country and in its service?"3 A military culture based on domestic ‘rules’ alone will not be adequate when forces are deployed outside the borders of the country.

CALLING OR JOB?

Wood’s view that the military is no longer a special organisation that performs a unique and important function critical to the survival of society, needs to be considered.4 He offers three major reasons for this change:

The nature of the military task has changed to deterrence or the accomplishment of some limited political objective.



Military service has been fragmented into specialities and as a result of large scale technological development and change, relies increasingly on non-military experts.



The military is increasingly based on management principles and cost analysis instead of military expertise.

In 1960 Janowitz has already suggested that "those who see the military profession as a calling or a unique profession are outnumbered by a far greater concentration of individuals for whom the military is just another job."5 Regarding a career in the military as just another job would thus imply that a sailor, for example, will evaluate a career in the navy in comparison with a career in a shipping company or the harbour service. Factors that will be considered are remuneration, fringe benefits, working conditions, rights to associate, prospects within the industry, rather than the specific company. Training and education opportunities with a general application will become more attractive than those limiting their application to specific companies. In the workplace, negotiation in terms of appointment and transfer, resulting in compensation or reward, will be of great importance.

On the other hand, regarding a career in the military as a vocation implies that the prospective soldier, sailor or airman’s ambitions are exclusively geared towards the military. S/he will not expect to negotiate appointments and transfers, nor will there be expectations for material reward if such appointments and transfers prove difficult. Regarding specific employment as a calling, for example, implies a willingness to sacrifice compensation for loss of rights such as leave when duty calls. Training can be expected to be directed at the military and have limited relevance in general industry. Downes observed that "... society requires its armed forces to demonstrate a commitment to altruistic service: the interests of society must be placed before self-interest. The most significant sign of altruism is the subordination of individual financial rewards to the goal of serving society."6 Such a commitment would surely be impossible for someone just looking for a job.

Being called to a career in the military further implies sacrificing certain civilian rights and privileges. Military personnel, unlike their civilian counterparts, enter a contract of unlimited liability with their employer7, and the society in question offers a reward for the service rendered. Seeing a career in the military as just another job, implies a contract consisting of a definitive relationship where service is compensated for, careerism is embedded and a uniform is ‘suitable attire’ for the job at hand. This implies an employer/ employee relationship typical of civilian life. With society being in fact the employer, and "... if society believes that the person in uniform is no different than any other worker, service people naturally think of themselves in those same terms."8

THE MILITARY AS A CALLING TO COMBAT SERVICE

A description of a soldier, sailor or airman as a person whose life is put at risk in training and executing his/her task without demanding extraordinary rewards, excludes the vast array of people involved in military operations ‘from a safe distance’. By limiting the military to this description, the conclusion can be made confidently that a career in the military will not be seen as ‘just another job’. Any person just looking for a job would not be willing to make the sacrifices required by a career in the military. It can therefore be deducted that a future South African military composed mainly of combatants who see their career as a calling, would give rise to the development of a culture that would include the following characteristics:

a high level of professionalism, with training and education directed specifically at the task at hand;



the absence of careerism, negotiated terms of service and a desire to associate, to ensure optimum terms and conditions of service; and



a sense of mutual trust and loyalty between seniors and juniors with no need to associate to ensure fair conditions of service.

It would in fact develop the traditional culture of the military where duty, honour and country are the underlying values.

THE MILITARY AS A CAREER IN UNIFORM

In the current South African situation, the military consists basically of officials appointed in terms of the Defence Act or similar statute and wearing uniforms, irrespective of whether they are employed in a combat mustering. This description illustrates the difficulty in accepting, as a general premise, that a career in the military could be regarded as a calling for all concerned. Many appointments in the military are in essence no different from those elsewhere in the civil service. Minor differences relating to dress and work procedures may exist, but a basic description of work done is generically the same. It is fair to assume that the culture one would expect in such a military, would be indistinguishable from that of the public service in general. The need amongst staff to associate would be expected, for example. Training and education will be geared towards functionally generic courses that are recognised within the civil service and, to a large extent, society as a whole.

UNIONISATION

It seems that some European nations are moving towards regarding a career in the military as being ‘normal’ employment. In some countries, for example the right of association and of collective bargaining has been accepted, to varying degrees, within armed forces. The recognition that soldiers have industrial rights has emerged from the acceptance of these rights for other civil servants. This is most prominent in Sweden, where soldiers have the right to strike.9

The most serious potential consequence of unionisation is its effect on civil-military relations. A well organised military union promoting institutional goals, a kind of ‘military qua military’, may become a powerful political force, designed not only to negotiate with the military command structure, but also to put pressure on constitutional bodies, such as Parliament.10 In this regard, Cortright has pointed out that the extent to which these self-preservation instincts run counter to public interest, poses a political problem. This is especially the case where a military union attempts to be the ultimate judge on all matters affecting the armed forces, thereby disturbing the equilibrium between the power of the military and the ideology of society. The principles of civilian control and democratic accountability would suffer in the process.11

Changes in European trends towards the military need to be contextualised. The German concept of a ‘soldier as a citizen in uniform’, for example, occurs in one of the most advanced nations in the world. The population is homogeneous, literacy rates are in excess of ninety per cent, the citizens enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, and the population is stable with an insignificant growth rate. However, this almost ideal situation is not universal and, even against this background, there are concerns about a ‘military within a military’. These concerns address the very essence of being an armed force. Warnings of the potential threat to civil-military relations in having trained, organised and armed men doing ‘just another job’ should not be taken lightly.

The tensions that threaten military reliability cannot be resolved through unionisation. Their resolution will depend on the mission adhered to within the military and on the ability of command structures to meet the needs of the rank-and-file. Internal effectiveness hinges on decisions of commanders, not labour leaders. A military culture based on an analogy between a career in the military and any other career in society in general and the civil service in particular, in which soldiers are viewed as normal civil servants in uniform, poses a grave potential danger to the civil structures of the state. One can only trust that the developed European democracies will be in a position to manage the situation. The question remains, however, whether such a culture is appropriate for South Africa.

AT THE CROSS-ROADS

South Africa has been at many cross-roads and has sometimes failed to take the right direction. The transition to a democratic South Africa has brought the country to another cross-road. Although the vision of the Interim Constitution is clear, the route that will take the country to the realisation of this vision is less obvious. South Africa’s military is also in need of clear direction. At issue is not whether South Africa continues to need armed forces. In the short months since President Mandela has been in office, he has had to consider deploying SANDF elements to Lesotho, Rwanda, Haiti, Mozambique and Angola. There is general consensus that the country needs professional, disciplined, effective, efficient and loyal military personnel, that will be generously rewarded by society. National pride is exemplified by the spontaneous applause in evidence at the presidential inauguration with the 21 gun salute and the SA Air Force flypast. It would be an important event when a ceremonial parade marching through Kathlehong is met with similar spontaneity, or when the freedom of Umtata is bestowed upon a SANDF regiment. It would be nice if soldiers on a weekend pass are guaranteed a lift at a Ride Safe sign, with the obliging public pleased to be able to do so without considering it to be an unnecessary risk.

There is a route that will lead the country to this point. It will, however, depend on how the nation views its military and how the military responds to the nation. Central to this ‘contract’ will be a military that is not a collection of clerks wearing uniforms with a few genuine soldiers, sailors and airmen hidden in remote army units, air force bases and ships at sea. A positive ‘contract’ will be based on a military whose men and women are in service. The institution of a civilian component in the Ministry of Defence is a first step in the process of divorcing real soldiers, sailors and airmen from those staff required to fulfil the multitude of non-military functions to ensure a modern military establishment. The civilianising of functions and tasks that do not have to be performed by military personnel, will allow for careerism in defence establishments without degrading the professional integrity of the military.

Deference to tradition is often considered old-fashioned and inappropriate. But, although new technology has dramatically changed the medical profession, for instance, the Hippocratic oath still prevails. Similarly, the principles and philosophy that have guided lawyers, policemen and farmers have changed little in spite of dramatic technological and social advances. It should be the same for the armed forces. Discarding the age-old traditions and values of service in a nation’s armed forces can only be done at the peril of the nation. It would be better to retain the goal of having a military composed of men and women called to serve their country, and make every attempt to ensure that the correct road is taken to achieve this. The experiences of the Departments of Health, Education and even the Police Service holding their Ministers ransom, on occasion to the point that the President himself has had to intervene, serve as a serious warning. The country cannot afford such a situation to develop within its armed forces.

DUTY, HONOUR AND COUNTRY: VALUES FOR MILITARY CULTURE IN SOUTH AFRICA

A heap of building material is to a house as a mob is to an army. Structured order and discipline elevate the army above the mob. Discipline denotes control over and order among personnel.12 Naturally, discipline for the sake of discipline serves no purpose. It is however, the tool that transforms an armed mob into an army. On the one hand, a misdirected though disciplined army is a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, a properly directed and disciplined army is a profound national asset. The trends towards approaching a career in the armed forces as merely another job, coupled to the developing culture of association and collective bargaining in South Africa, do not augur well for the SANDF in future.

There can be little argument that a South African military culture should be based on professionalism and adherence to the traditional values of duty, honour and country. This requires a dramatic shift from the current composition of the SANDF, in particular the domination of the tail to teeth in uniform, and the public view of the armed forces.

The public view of the military cannot be influenced positively by communication operations or public relations alone. Respect will have to be earned by those service personnel who regard their careers in the military as a calling. A military career must be confined to combatants who do not compare themselves to other civil servants, because there are none vaguely like them. In order to achieve this ‘safe’ situation, the move toward a large civilian component in the Department of Defence and the civilianisation of non-combat personnel in the SANDF, should be urgently progressed.

L. Heinecken, Soldiers and Employee Rights: South African Trends and Issues, paper presented at the South African Sociological Congress, 4 - 6 July 1994.



C. Moskos, Institutional and Occupation Trends in Armed Forces, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1988.



D. Smart, The Revision of South African Defence Legislation - a personal view, African Defence Review 18, August 1994.



R. Wood, At the cutting edge of Institutional and Occupational Trends: The US Air Force Officer Corps, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1988.



M. Janowitz, The Professional Soldier, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1988.



C. Downes, Comparative Perspectives - Great Britain: The Military - More than just a Job?, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1981.



Heinecken, op. cit.



Downes, op. cit.



Heinecken, op. cit.



D. Morehouse, Legal Aspects of Unions in the Military, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1977.



D. Cortright, Unions and Democracy; Military Unions - US Trends and Issues, quoted in Heinecken, op. cit., 1977.



Smart, op. cit.