Patriots: President Jacob Zuma greets SANDF members. Malema's speech raises questions about the relationship between soldiers and politicians, says the writer. Picture: GCIS / Sapa Patriots: President Jacob Zuma greets SANDF members. Malema's speech raises questions about the relationship between soldiers and politicians, says the writer. Picture: GCIS / Sapa
Julius Malema knows how to grab and keep the attention of the news media. He also knows how to grab the attention of ordinary citizens, who never seem to tire of either being enthralled or appalled by his rousing statements. What would people who phone in to talk radio have to talk about if they could not talk about the latest statement or action by the axed ANC Youth League leader?
It was therefore inevitable that Julius Malema’s speech at the Lenasia Recreational Centre, to members of the SA National Defence Force (SANDF), would excite much chatter.
The speech raises larger questions about the relationship between politicians and soldiers. Is it ever appropriate in a constitutional democracy like ours for a politician to address troops, and if so, when? More pertinently, is it not illegal for unelected politicians to be seen to speak to soldiers and criticise the current leadership of the ANC and the government it leads?
In the apartheid years, the defence force was a highly politicised institution serving the interests of the National Party. It was deployed inside and outside SA to defend the apartheid state and white privilege that flowed from it.
National Party politicians, who wanted to demonstrate to white voters how kragdadig(forceful and ready to use force) they were, often held speeches at formal military parades, exhorting the troops to fight for volk en vaderland(for the white nation and the white homeland) and against die magte van die bose(the powers of the evildoers).
One could hardly switch on the SABC television news at night without being confronted by some National Party minister or another telling the white troops to fight for wit selfbeskikking(white self-determination) against the godless ANC.
As Willie Esterhuyse noted in Endgame, his new book about the role he played in the transition to democracy, large segments of the military were seen as deeply suspicious of talks between the National Party and the ANC and did everything to derail these talks. In a dramatic turn of events, then-president FW de Klerk revealed in 1992 that an inquiry had uncovered security force plots against political reform.
De Klerk then fired scores of senior officers of the defence force in what was widely seen as a purge of those in the defence force opposed to democracy.
Given this background, it is not surprising that the constitution contains specific provisions to prevent the military from becoming a tool in the hands of the ruling elite. Section 199 of the constitution therefore contains binding principles to guide the structuring of the security services as well as the behaviour of its members.
To prevent the military from again getting involved in politically motivated atrocities, section 199 (5) of the constitution now requires the security services to act, and to teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the constitution and the law, including customary international law.
To ensure the non-involvement of the security forces in party politics, section 199 (7) of the constitution prohibits any member of any security service from prejudicing the constitutionally legitimate interests of a political party and from furthering, in a partisan manner, the interest of a political party in the performance of their functions.
Obviously, this does not mean that the security services are completely insulated from politics. After all, the president is also the commander-in-chief of the defence force and appoints (and can fire, in certain circumstances) the heads of the SANDF.
Members of the SANDF are not assumed to be apolitical beings without any private beliefs and ideas. This is why neither the constitution nor the Defence Act prohibits soldiers – in their personal capacities – from joining political parties, from voting and from attending political rallies.
Like other citizens, soldiers also have democratic rights.
However, the Defence Act does place limits on the rights of soldiers to exercise their democratic rights. For example, section 50 (4) of the act states that the right of members of the defence force to assemble peacefully and unarmed, to join demonstration, to picket and sign petitions, may be subjected to restrictions to “the extent necessary for military discipline”.
Reports indicate that the defence force had prohibited its members from attending the Malema event (one assumes because it was thought necessary to maintain military discipline).
If this were a blanket ban on the attendance of soldiers (whether on duty and in uniform or not), the instruction almost certainly imposed an unjustifiable limitation on the rights of soldiers to take part in political activity. However, on-duty soldiers or soldiers in uniform who did attend may well face disciplinary charges and plausibly even dismissal. However, there is no law prohibiting an off-duty soldier from attending any political gathering – as long as that gathering is not unlawful.
As far as I know, there is also no law that specifically prohibits a private citizen from addressing troops – even if that private citizen is Malema and even if he criticises the government of the day.
But this does not mean that anyone can incite insurrection in the defence force without facing appropriate legal consequences. Rather hysterically – as if in a panic – Malema’s planned address has been slammed by Defence ministry spokesman Siphiwe Dlamini, who called it “incitement… which is a criminal offence… it will be treated as such”.
Having said all this, and having concluded that in all likelihood no crime was committed, one should still ask whether Malema acted appropriately by going to speak to soldiers. But I guess expecting Malema to act appropriately is like expecting King Goodwill Zwelithini to demand an immediate reduction in his perks and his royal budget.