4.3 The SANDF
4.3.2 Identifying the problem
100
navigation and pilot training that may be used in the military or in South African society.97 But instead of remaining in the SANDF, many of those trained leave it for more lucrative jobs. In May 2008, The Saturday Star reported that three quarters of all submariners trained each year left the navy.98 These job vacancies undermine the ability of the SANDF to function effectively – there is not the sufficient expertise to use and maintain the equipment which is then in many cases allowed to fall into disrepair.
101
a duty to defend their country. While this may perhaps be too difficult a duty to impose on all citizens, joining the Defence Force is committing to serving one‟s country, putting one‟s duty to the country first.
Significantly, it appears as if Sisulu, while accusing soldiers of not fulfilling their duty, is now guilty of the same offence. A request has been made by the parliamentary defence portfolio committee to present the reports on the morale and service conditions in the SANDF in order to be fully informed in making decisions regarding the proposed Defence Amendment Bill (to create Sisulu‟s previously discussed proposed permanent service commission to deal with military conditions of service).100 Sisulu has refused to release the reports on the grounds that the reports have not been finalised and have not been viewed by the Cabinet.101 The Cabinet has supported her decision but parliamentary legal advisor Mukesh Vassen has argued that the parliamentary defence portfolio committee is legally entitled to request to see the reports under section 56 of the Constitution.102 Opposition Member of Parliament, David Maynier has accused Sisulu of a cover up since she has had access to these reports for over six months and has yet to present them to the Cabinet.103 While there have been calls to subpoena Sisulu to present the reports, with the backing of the Cabinet, Sisulu seems to have succeeded in keeping them from parliament.104 Media leaks of these reports suggest that there are very serious concerns over the morale and capabilities of the SANDF, to the point of being a threat to national security.105 It is thus concerning that Sisulu is firstly limiting parliament‟s oversight capabilities by refusing to present the documents, and secondly
100 Hartley, W. 2010, MPs might subpoena Sisulu over report, Aug 8 edn, Business Day, http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=117704, [9 September 2010].
101 Ibid
102 Ibid
103 SAPA. 2010, Sisulu stands ground on report, Sept 29 edn, News24,
http://m.news24.com/new24/SouthAfrica/Politics/Sisulu-stands-ground-on-report [7 September 2010].
104 Ibid
105 Ibid
102
that she is potentially covering up serious problems within the SANDF – an institution that it is her duty to maintain. While Sisulu is quick to call on soldiers to obey their duties, she is not setting a clear example in refusing to submit to parliamentary oversight procedures which are clearly set out in the Constitution. Section 92 states:
Members of the cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions. Members of the cabinet must act in accordance with the constitution and provide parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control.
(1996)
Furthermore, the constitution also allows that the national assembly or any of its committees may summon any person or institution to report to it (1996: S56). Sisulu is therefore disobeying a direct and ostensibly legitimate order – the very behaviour that she condemned in soldiers. In addition, she is not doing so discretely but telling opposition MPs to „get over it‟ when they questioned her behaviour.106
Some who have entered the SANDF no longer seem to see the honour in their job and thus feel it is appropriate to disobey orders publically. It appears they treat their role as soldiers as a job – an instrumental means to survive economically. When the conditions of the job were unacceptable, they chose the most effective course of action to fix the problem. There is no doubt that striking has worked for many other groups of civil servants and thus, despite the fact that it was not in line with their duty to the country, they acted in their own best interests to achieve a particular end. The Constitutional Court did rule in favour of soldiers‟ right to protest action but soldiers are nevertheless required to gain permission to strike before they do so and in this case they were not
106 Ibid
103
granted permission. So it is important to note that soldiers have been granted the right to join unions and to protest legally yet despite this they made the decision to strike without permission and to do so violently. This is a fundamental shift in attitude to consider. While the idea of citizenly duty has faded over time, in many countries there is still a strong sense of honour and duty involved with the military. As mentioned earlier, soldiers in the USA Army are, on the whole, treated with the utmost respect – as is the case in most of the developed world. While militaries sometimes embark on missions with which not all citizens agree, in most cases the objection is to the specific mission and citizens still respect the military for its role as protector should danger arise. Soldiers used to be considered almost as the ultimate citizen – citizens who were willing to put duty to the country and fellow citizens over their own lives. The fact that in South Africa it appears to be merely a job to many soldiers undermines this important sense of duty that makes for an effective military.
4.3.3 Analysing the implications