INTRODUCTION

Both the Army and the Defence Secretariat have a specific though different role to play in the crucial area of guaranteeing an effective defence for South Africa's fledgeling democracy. The role of the Secretariat has been defined clearly in the Defence Amendment Act, No 2 of 1995, that was signed by the President on 6 October 1995. The prime responsibility of the Secretary for Defence is at present to develop a viable organisation and staff it adequately, with the longer term goal of making a constructive contribution to the achievement of the Army's own goals and objectives - albeit in an indirect manner.

PERSPECTIVE ON SOUTH AFRICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

History is said to repeat itself. Unfortunately, it is often the mistakes that fall into this category, and not the successes. However, the history of civil-military relations in South Africa serves as testimony of the fact that the collaborative participation of a civilian component in the Department of Defence is vital to ensure a healthy partnership between the civil authorities and the military.

Three distinct phases of South Africa's recent past will be reflected upon, as each of them carries a series of salient lessons for civil-military relations in the current dispensation. Though it is acknowledged that civil-military relations have a tradition that stretches into previous centuries, these periods all refer to the post-1910 period.

This will be followed by the identification of some universal principles with regard to civil-military relations elsewhere in the world, before focusing on the present and the role the Defence Secretariat envisages for itself in the future.

The Creation of the UDF: 1912 - 1948

South African civil-military relations prior to the tumultuous periods of the 1970s and 1980s were generally stable in that the armed forces were institutionally insignificant, apart from their activities in several wars, and never sought to challenge the political authorities. This was mainly as a result of their reliance on a large part-time force component (PTF) that reinforced the 'citizen-in-uniform' ethos, and the resilience of white political society at the time.

However, despite the history of relatively stable civil-military relations, civil-military relations were characterised by two distinctive features:

The armed forces, as an instrument of the state, were often used for the preservation of privilege. This was reflected in their internal deployment against white mineworkers in 1914, 1915 and 1922; against black mineworkers and workers in 1919 and 1946; and against rebellions such as the Bondelswart rebellion in Namibia in the 1920s.



The armed forces were manifestly unrepresentative in composition, particularly at senior levels of the organisation. This phenomenon persisted in the Defence Force until 1994.

1948 and the Effect of Political Interference

The year 1948 witnessed the election of a new government to power in South Africa. The initial relations between the government and the armed forces were to be bedeviled by controversy. Between 1948 and 1953 a number of senior officers, both English and Afrikaans speaking, were laid off from the Union Defence Forces, either because of their ethnic origin (many English speaking officers for instance), or because of their alleged support for Field Marshall Smuts.

In addition to the above, black and coloured soldiers were demobilised and most of their units disbanded. Citizen Force regiments came under attack and an attempt was made to eradicate their traditions and imperial affiliations. An attempt was made to indigenise the rank structure of the UDF. The effects of such meddling in the UDF was severe, leading to demoralisation within the ranks, loss of critical professional expertise from departed officers and the proud combat tradition built up during the Second World War, and undermining of both the technical capabilities and the military professionalism of the UDF.

The experiences of the UDF demonstrated the 'flip side' of civil-military relations. While it is imperative that the armed forces remain subservient to the elected government, the elected government has a responsibility to prevent political meddling with the armed forces themselves. It is felt, however, that South Africa has learned from the lessons of the UDF and that the transition that are witnessed at present is a more pragmatic and negotiated restructuring of the armed forces.

Post-1978 and the Dangers of Mission Creep

The political victory of P.W. Botha, as leader of the National Party, brought with it the unparalleled influence of the military over the state. This was not the result of some premeditated takeover conspiracy by the military. It was essentially an extension of military influence within the key decision-making nodes of the state on 'invitation' - an invitation extended by Botha to the armed forces.

At that stage the SADF was not entirely comfortable with its new role. However, the lack of managerial experience within the state, and the intense bureaucratic in-fighting that characterised its different departments, meant that major projects relating to reform and restructuring often fell onto the shoulders of the armed forces. Gradually, the influence of the armed forces extended until it reached throughout state and society. The emergence of the Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB) was an extreme manifestation of this influence and the extent to which the armed forces had moved beyond their traditional brief.

The lessons of the 1980s are particularly relevant for South Africa at present. They highlight the following factors, essential for maintaining healthy civil-military relations:

The role of the armed forces, in both state and society, should be strictly determined within the Constitution.



To prevent the armed forces from exerting undue influence over the political process, it is important to confine their involvement in decision-making to those areas that relate directly to the execution of their brief.



The utilisation of the armed forces in non-traditional roles, for instance support for the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), and maintaining law and order, should be carefully measured against other more cost-effective and less politically contentious alternatives.



The phenomenon of 'mission creep' should be guarded against. It is very easy to use the armed forces in certain roles in the short to medium term, but it is often more difficult to disengage them in the long term.

CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN DEMOCRACIES ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD

The exact contours of civil-military relations are determined by the peculiarities of the political culture of the country concerned. However, there are certain generic principles that underpin civil-military relations in most democratic countries. These include the following:

The principle of civil supremacy remains inviolable in all democratic countries.



The armed forces should always remain subordinate to the elected government in a democracy.



The elected government has a responsibility to ensure that armed forces are budgeted for so that they can accomplish their brief as mandated by the constitution of the country concerned.



In all democracies parliament controls both the state and the armed forces, as an apparatus of that state.



The principle of transparency should apply to the activities of both the state and the armed forces, although with the latter, consideration must be given to the operational requirements of the armed forces.



The armed forces should be bound by a military professionalism that acknowledges the democratic environment within which they operate.



The formulation of defence policy is not an end in itself and takes place within the broader ambit of national policy, national security policy, and foreign policy.



The mechanisms through which adherence to these principles are ensured, vary from country to country. Generally, they include such mechanisms as parliamentary oversight committees, the creation of primarily civilian defence ministries, and the institution of appropriate civic-education programmes within the armed forces.

CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

The Draft White Paper on Defence reflects these principles in a South African environment. Referring to civil-military relations it states the following:

The activities of the armed forces are circumscribed by the provisions of the Interim Constitution.



Parliament possesses a range of powers in relation to the armed forces, including investigation, recommendation and supervision, approval of defence legislation and the defence budget, and power to review the President's decisions regarding the deployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).



The institution of an independent Ombudsman will be investigated.



The principle of maximum transparency with regard to access to information will be adopted.



To facilitate both effective defence management and oversight over the activities of the armed forces, a Defence Secretariat will be established with primary responsibility for the policy, programme and budget, as well as the accounting functions of the Department of Defence.



A military professional ethos will be created that acknowledges the democratic constraints of the society within which the defence force operates.



The rights of all military personnel will be acknowledged and protected.



The military will be held accountable to the electorate.

THE ROLE OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN DEFENCE SECRETARIAT IN ENSURING HEALTHY CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

The role of the South African Defence Secretariat in ensuring healthy civil-military relations is seen as encompassing the following.

Balance Model Department of Defence

The Defence Secretariat plays an important role in ensuring robust and healthy civil-military relations, that must be seen within the broader context of the responsibilities of the entire defence community. The so-called 'balanced model' consists of the following:

the Minister of Defence who is responsible for the formulation of defence policy, is accountable to Parliament for the activities of the Department of Defence, is responsible for conveying political guidelines and the national policy framework to the Department of Defence, and for conveying the needs of the Department of Defence to the elected government;



the Defence Secretariat, who advises the Minister on all aspects relating to defence policy, programmes and budgets, performs the financial accounting function within the Department of Defence, and who takes responsibility for interdepartmental and parliamentary liaison on behalf of the Department; and



the Chief of the Defence Force who commands the SANDF, who translates defence policy into military strategy and plans, executes these strategies and plans, and who is the principal adviser for the Minister on all military matters.

Defence Secretariat Functions

The Secretariat, as outlined above, is not the only institution involved in ensuring healthy civil-military relations, but it plays an important role within the defence community. The functions ascribed to the Secretariat are important for several reasons:

Locating the policy function within the Secretariat ensures that this primarily civilian structure, in consultation with other actors, including the military, formulates policy within the framework of the competing policy perspectives that jointly resolve themselves in a national policy framework.



"He or she who controls the purse, controls the armed forces". To allow the armed forces to control their finances would be to allow them to be both referees and players at the same time. Locating the finance function in a non-military structure ensures the regularity of defence expenditure.



By taking responsibility for interdepartmental and parliamentary liaison, the Secretariat ensures that the armed forces do not become directly engaged in the political process. Officials within the Secretariat may also not become involved.

Advantages of a Defence Secretariat

The role played by the Defence Secretariat has a number of advantages for the armed forces in general. Amongst others, it includes the following:

It frees the armed forces of many of their non-traditional functions - accounting responsibility, parliamentary liaison, etc. - and allows them to concentrate on their primary brief, namely preparation for and execution of war.



By taking responsibility for many of the 'political' functions of defence management - parliamentary liaison and interdepartmental liaison, for instance - the Secretariat acts as a 'buffer' for the armed forces against the unwarranted intrusion and meddling of politically inclined institutions in their daily affairs.



By civilianising many of the functions of defence - for example, finances, aspects of logistics, personnel and auditing - the Secretariat will save money for the armed forces and will prevent the growth of large and cumbersome staff structures within the Defence Force.



By taking primary responsibility for the co-ordination of defence policy, the Secretariat ensures that a wide range of players - the military, foreign affairs and other government departments, civil and political society - are involved in the formulation of defence policy. This ensures that a rich and varied combination of input is received in the formulation of this policy - a key ingredient for the formulation of sound policy anywhere in the world.

CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS: SYNERGISM BETWEEN ALL ACTORS

It is relatively easy to provide a general outline of how civil-military relations should work. However, no amount of general principles, process charts and diagrams, in themselves, can create healthy civil-military relations. For civil-military relations to be effective two essential ingredients are required: firstly, the creation of a political culture that allows civil-military relations to thrive and, secondly, continued interaction between all the actors that comprise the defence community.

Towards this end the Secretariat faces a series of challenges that have a direct impact on the future of all the Arms of Service. In the first place, the Secretariat must establish the nature of its relationships with civil and political society in detail.

Political society, the collective expression of the public's interests via party politics, constitutes the most important stakeholder in society. For the benefit of the defence community as a whole, the Secretariat must ensure ongoing, meaningful and interactive dialogue between the defence community and political society. Such a relationship must be predicated on mutual trust and measures to build confidence must be the concern of both sides.



Civil society consists of those organisations that represent a wide range of interests in society in general. These include specific interest groups, civic groups, national bodies and others. Such groups have considerable influence over the formulation of policy, as well as considerable lobbying ability in relation to Parliament. The Secretariat must actively engage such groups in the ongoing defence debate on a wide range of issues such as human resources, environmental affairs, reconstruction and development imperatives, etc.

In these interactions, the Defence Secretariat should ensure that the SA Army in particular, as the largest and most visible Arm of Service, develop an understanding for and be exposed to interaction with the new role players in both civil and political society.

The Secretariat must also develop specific interactive relationships with the rest of the state. This is particularly important in relation to those departments involved in foreign affairs, the RDP and state expenditure.

Apart from building and developing capacity within and among its own ranks, the Secretariat must also establish and realise a relationship with the rest of the defence community and the Arms of Service, in particular by providing the following:

sound and comprehensive policy formulation based on the needs and requirements of the Defence Force;



interactive and participative policy formulation with the Army, in other words making policy 'with' and not 'for' stakeholders; and



receiving, adjudicating and processing the requirements of the SA Army in relation to identified areas of activity.

THE DEFENCE SECRETARIAT'S CONTRIBUTION TO CHALLENGES FACING THE ARMY

The SA Army has, in the course of its planning process, identified specific challenges that has to be confronted in the short to medium term. The Secretariat can make a valuable contribution towards the realisation of its aims and objectives in the face of these challenges.

Contributing to the improvement of morale and discipline will be achieved by



building constructive labour relations within the Department of Defence;



acknowledging and managing multi-cultural diversity within the armed forces; and



maintaining good personal relations with all uniformed and civilian defence personnel through constructive acknowledgement of their contributions, their dignity and their commitments.

Maintaining professional capabilities imply

ensuring that the educational and training requirements of the armed forces accord with their existing and anticipated deployment roles; adopting a creative and interactive approach to education and training that builds on the latest developments in both pedagogy and methodology;



building and enhancing leadership at all levels of the organisation that is characterised by dynamism, creativity, and premised on sound moral principles;



adopting a management approach that allows the Army to respond to complex and changing circumstances, while simultaneously avoiding the stifling effects of both group-think and rigid management styles, essential within the context of a rapidly changing environment; and



ensuring that education and training takes account of the challenges that will face modern armed forces in the 21st Century, commonly referred to as the "revolution in military affairs" precipitated by technological advances.

Defining a viable policy on the future of the Part-Time Forces (PTF) will include

securing representativeness within the PTF, especially in those units that have a strong community profile and which are to be used for the benefit of the community;



ensuring that the proposed service conditions for the PTF attract high quality personnel to the SA Army; and



making provision for the uniqueness of the Army's PTF that are primarily an active Citizen Force component. It is imperative to maintain combat readiness amongst the PTF by the recognising the vital role played by them in the community, through the provision of high standards of equipment and training, and their utilisation in dynamic and challenging deployment roles.

Continued support to the South African Police Services in the maintenance of law and order must be maintained. Without this support, it is questionable whether the transition in South Africa would have been relatively as smooth as it has been thus far. However, while such support does not fall within the traditional brief of the Army and should be of a short to medium term nature, a plan must be devised to phase out SA Army involvement in this arena in an incremental fashion.

The SA Army's monitoring of the country's borders plays an essential role in ensuring that large numbers of illegal immigrants do not swamp the country and exacerbate competition over scarce resources. However, such activities undertaken by the SA Army are, at best, only 'holding actions' which are no substitute for regional RDP efforts which seek to rejuvenate the region.

Calls are frequently made to the Army to involve itself in RDP-related work. The Secretariat believes that a consistent policy needs to be established in this regard. Such policy should take account of the costs of involvement, the dangers for the SA Army inherent in such involvement (for instance, disrupting training schedules and undermining primary capabilities), and the fact that the SA Army is already involved in providing infrastructural support to the Service Corps.

The dilemma of supplying capital equipment is a problem facing all Arms of Service. A critical choice will have to be made at a political level and translated into policy, between a Defence Force that is based on highly developed technology with a small manpower component, or vice versa. If the latter is chosen, it is clear that without sufficient investment in capital projects, the Defence Force will only be able to execute certain types of functions that will exclude vital tasks such as peace operations, disaster relief and maritime protection.

Facilitating transformation within the SA Army is a key issue that will be of significance until the end of this century. Transforming the Army is based on two related dimensions. In the first place a cultural transformation will have to take place that will ensure that the armed forces are truly representative of the country's diverse ethnic, gender and military traditions. Integration will be the key in this regard, although demobilisation, rationalisation, equal opportunity and affirmative action will also be determinants in this area. In the second place, structural transformation will include rationalisation of personnel, support structures and expenditure to ensure that the Army is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities in a cost-effective and professional manner. It should also be ensured that rationalisation and demobilisation are conducted in such a manner that personnel are effectively reintegrated into civil society with the appropriate skills and training to enable them to sustain themselves. Wide-ranging policy is being formulated within the Department of Defence in this regard.

Determining the future employment of the SA Army in relationship to both South and Southern African requirements is of crucial importance. It must be ensured that the Army in its various deployment tasks, is not overextended. A sober and critical perspective on potential tasks for the Army is required.

The legitimacy of the SA Army within the community needs to be developed and established. Without legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, the Army will, quite literally, not work. Legitimacy requires a force that is visibly representative of the country's population, is well-trained in the execution of its duties, and is constitutionally bound in it activities.

CONCLUSION

The various armies in South Africa have played important roles in the past and each in its own right has a distinguished history. They are presently integrating to form the new South African National Defence Force - a force truly accountable and fully representative of the country's diverse traditions. The Defence Secretariat, as one of the major policy actors within the defence community, would like to play a meaningful role in the transformation of the Army both now and in the future. It is hoped that with continued co-operation, the maintenance of a synergetic relationship, and the concerted development of mutual trust and confidence, the relationship between the Secretariat and the Arms of Service will be of true significance.

ENDNOTES

Edited version of a paper read at the Annual Army Conference, Preparing the SA Army for the 21st Century, 19 October 1995, CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria.