FEATURE: Disbanding the Military

There have been several postings on this forum dealing with the causes of Africa's underdevelopment...and indeed, the case has been made that the Armed Forces has contributed in no small measure to the economic impoverishment of most African countries. It cannot be denied that the interventions by the Military in the civic affairs of African States, where they have seized political power, have often been counter productive.

It is also true to say, that the maintenance of a standing Army, the size of which most African countries have become accustomed to, poses a considerable drain on the financial resources of the Nation States. If we exclude the UN subvention for peace keeping duties, there is very little that can be said to have accrued by way of direct financial or economic gain from the Military...which is not to say that any other form of contribution ought to be discounted.

However, telling from the tone and tenor of most of the articles so far submitted the impression conveyed; is that the Military must carry the "night soil" can for it's unsolicited and unwelcome intrusion into the serene lives of the innocent civilian populace...notwithstanding the fact that such intervention has often been instigated by muttering and prompting from the civilian community ...sometimes received covert and overt assistance from external parties...and in government the Military have been ably assisted, aided and abetted by civilian Administrators, Ministers, Governors, Secretaries of State and Commissioners... who have been equally corrupt and culpable. In any case, GREED is a human failing... and a vice which does not discriminate between a civilian or military host.

The "conventional wisdom" which has been doing the rounds on to how to address our political and economic woes in so far as they relate to the Military appears to be the treatise sponsored by the Free Africa Foundation...and the viewpoint articulated by the amiable and distinguished Economist...but some may say,imperious!...he who wields the cutlass!...the one and only!! Professor George Ayittey. In typical strident form the recommendation is to hold a referendum, where all and sundry will be presented with the choice to either disband the Military or slash its budget and size in half. May I be permitted to relate my comments specifically to Ghana...

DEFENCE REVIEW
There may well be a case for reshaping, reforming, restructuring, squeezing, trimming down ...re! something to the Military; just as indeed similar "value for money" arguments can be advanced for reforming our Educational Institutions,the Civil Service, the Judiciary and even the Executive. Nevertheless, the mark of true scholarship lies in our ability to provide solutions in the form of proposals and policy recommendations which are designed to promote and gain consensus...and from which working documents can be derived to implement achievable objectives.

Defence reviews are not new nor are they novel phenomena. The political system allows for the submission of documentation from experts and all sorts of interest groups. I reckon that the proper and congenial places for dealing with these matters will be the committee rooms of Parliament and chambers of Government where all the stakeholders can be engaged in a consultative process to consider the viability and cost implications of all the proposals. The great things of the world are not born from noise and tumult but in intimacy and sober contemplation.

ROLE OF THE ADVOCATE
Bearing in mind the enormity of this task, the very least we can expect from advocates who are held...or hold themselves up as Authority Figures, is to show consummate knowledge on the subject matter they opine on.

First and foremost, they must demonstrate an understanding of the complexity or simplicity of the organisational structure and the functions of the constituent parts of the Military.

The military cannot be dismantled by merely hurling a demolition ball at the institution. Any exercise to disband or reform it will involve the preparation of an exhaustive due diligence study. The process of disbanding it will entail the accomplishment of several project management tasks such as programs to amalgamate or decommission units and regiments. All of these tasks have to be set within a time frame which may be short, medium or even long term...and so undertaken without compromising our national security. If I may be allowed to raid the engineering lexicon... any suggestion to "deconstruct" the Military must be accompanied by designs and working schedules; the absence of which will lead to inevitable collapse and result in unintended fatalities.

Secondly, they must enumerate the social and economic repercussions or implications of their proposals and set out the procedures and mechanics for addressing these. We cannot disregard the social consequences of our policy recommendations as insignificant or bracket them as "collateral damage".

The Military as an institution has developed over a period to become a network of communities, some of which offer supporting services and facilities of a non military nature such as schools, hospitals and markets. Surely some one must be earning her keep selling kenke and fish in the open air eateries that have become permanent features of the Military Camps. The consequences of any dislocation or disruption to the livelihood of identifiable sectors of the community must count as a factor for consideration and redress.

BANDITS AND BARBARIANS
The Armed Forces is not a collective mass of sweaty infantry men always engaged in mock battles and parade drills. The men in uniform possess competencies and skills which match those to be found in civil community. They are not only Riflemen and Gunners but Doctors, Paramedics,Musicians,Carpenters,Drivers,Divers,Legal Practitioners,Administrators, Accountants,Book keepers,Sportsmen and Economists.

Indeed the Military is a snap shot of the larger community. The recruits come from all types of ethnic grouping, all classes of homes and are products of our educational system and the Western Military Academies. If they are deemed collectively stupid...then that is what we are in the entirety as a nation! A blanket indictment of the community at large...a distinguished person who hails from a community of buffoons is a buffoon nonetheless.

REFERENDUM
The option of a referendum is nothing more than an invitation to camp on either side of a battle line. This will require the funding of campaign groups whose task it will be to inform and educate the public. As all referenda go, there will always be room to misinform and deploy scare tactics to win votes. On the one side, the taunts of "bandits" and "barbarians" will be used to conjure the image of the Military as a bugaboo!! On the other, we will have a section of the community, literally fighting to save careers, jobs, livelihood and reputation. The entire exercise will be divisive and an unwholesome spectacle to behold. It behoves us to spare our infant democracy this war of attrition. In any case will the poll be decided on a qualified or simple majority?

DISBANDING THE MILITARY
The "call" to disband the Armed Forces is one that I am grappling with..I do not quite get it! Will it mean dismantling the entire Institution?... as in ... leave no trace of a military infrastructure! or will the requirement be to dismantle a substantial portion thereof and mothball the remainder?...just in case we may need to defend ourselves against aliens from Mars! It will be a daunting but not impossible task to disband the Armed Forces. After all everything is possible! Should we choose to commit mass suicide... we can always find an ingenious way to do so.

Nevertheless prior to disassembling all the infrastructures of the military we will need to carry out a national security assessment to evaluate any imminent, perceived or potential threats to our airspace, land and sea borders. Whichever way we look at it we will have to make choices on how to maintain and defend our territorial integrity. We may be at peace with our neighbours, but it will be foolhardy to discount any future requirement to maintain a state of preparedness to respond to a national emergency involving combat....and, should that arise what command structures will we have in place for moving men and logistics to the combat area? Assuming I responded to such a call...which end of the gun do I point at the enemy?

What about the lump sum required for redundancy payments? How much will the entire exercise cost?...and where will the money come from? What will happen to the assets? Will the soldiers be evicted from their barracks or will they be required to pay rent? Which body will be created to manage all the real estate? What orientation programmes will be undertaken to resettle the soldiers into the civilian community?

It follows, that from the noble intent and initial "command", several cascading issues and questions arise which must of necessity engage the minds of our Distinguished Economists to determine whether the proposition is desirable or achievable in the short to medium term.

We may prevent coup by disbanding the Military; but having thousands of young able men consigned to an uncertain future is no guarantee of political stability. Mob action is an equally ferocious force capable of toppling any government. It can also be argued that the Military deters the creation of private militias.

WARFARE IN TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
One of the pillars that has been used to buttress the case for disbanding the Military is the argument that most traditional African societies did not have standing armies. That may well be the case if all you need to fight a war are brick bats, bows and arrows, charms and amulets...and sheer brute instinct. But with the slightest of technological advancement such as gun powder and muskets; it becomes imperative that some training be given to the youth to ensure a state of preparedness. There wasn't an Army in a sense of career soldiers drawing on the community purse...but there most certainly were identifiable groups within society whose task it was to defend the community or sometimes to wage war.

The balance of power was held by dominant tribes who definitely embarked on territorial expansion through conquest and subjugation of weaker tribes. Some training in the art of warfare would have formed a regular feature of community life. A glossy representation of African history which suggests a perpetual state of congeniality and peaceful co-existence, coupled with generalities which presupposes that all African communities shared a unified system of values is not a sound premise for determining current policy.

OPTION TO DOWN SIZE
There well may be a case for trimming down the size of the Armed Forces to make it a leaner and fitter rapid response force. Some possible way of reducing the numbers will be to allow for natural wastage through retirement and voluntary redundancy and a freeze on recruitment.

We will be left with the choice of transforming the Institution into a development agency or corps or to assimilate it into the civilian community. Either way, we will be dealing with "sentient beings" and their dependants and it will be far better to get them to buy into the project as stakeholders. This will allow the reform or transformation to occur organically.

I do not fault Prof. Ayittey for his opinions or for raising the topic. The role of the Military in a young democracy is a legitimate topic for discussion. Someone's got to initiate the discussion and it sure takes guts to be an agent provocateur.

My concerns relate to the barrage of vitriol and emotive language deployed to sustain the momentum of his arguments and the factional approach he advocates as a worthwhile and viable option. It is true that we must learn from our mistakes and the unsavoury track record of the military merits mention. But certainly in the case of Ghana, there is very little mileage to be gained heaping scorn on the Military. The presumption that every individual Military personnel by virtue of his or her employment is a threat to society, is bound to antagonize a section of the community and raise anxiety and cause resentment.

Some invective may spice up and perhaps give a sharp edge to one's argument. But over indulging in scornful essaying to a point where the argument ceases to be cogent and descends into polemics, amounts to nothing more than needless politicking. To devote pages to historical narratives and lifted quotes and only a paragraph to policy recommendation...is very much like enduring hours of moans, groans and excitement only to discharge a drop of semen!!...chances of that fertilising anything!..mind or egg... and bearing fruit... is rather remote.

A significant feature of our underdevelopment is that we tend to be rather long on analysis but short on practical ideas.