| |
Back to Index
An
oral presentation on security sector reform
Wilfred Mhanda
July 20, 2011
There is currently
a raging public debate on security sector reform that has been triggered
by controversial remarks by senior military officers. Brigadier-
General Douglas Nyikayaramba, Army commander of 3 Infantry Brigade
based in Mutare recently declared in an interview with the Zimbabwe
Independent, that Mugabe and ZANU PF should rule for ever and poured
scorn on the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. He declared that
ZANU PF would win the next election and that he was prepared to
fight and die for Mugabe. In further utterances, he designated the
Prime Minister to be a national security threat and not a political
one, in response to a challenge by Morgan Tsvangirai for the pro
ZANU PF Generals to take off their uniforms and enter the political
fray. The remarks by Nyikayaramba are patently political and partisan
and disrespectful of the Prime Minister and not expected of a serving
military officer of such a senior rank. The remarks follow on similar
utterances by some Generals and the Police Commissioner General
that they would never salute Morgan Tsvangirai were he to win an
election to become president and head of state and against the backdrop
of the military spearheading a violent
election campaign for Mugabe-s re-election in the presidential
election run off of 27 June 2008.
In 2002, the
country-s service chiefs, in a joint statement at a press
conference ahead of the March 2002 presidential
election, declared that the office of a head of state was a
straight jacket that could not be occupied by anyone without liberation
war credentials. The reaction to the remarks by Nyikayaramba have
to be seen in the context of the trend by senior military officers
to identify themselves with Mugabe and ZANU PF in violation of the
standards for a professional defence force that should place the
national interest above partisan sectional considerations.
The remarks
by Nyikayaramba have thus rekindled the debate on the appropriateness
of political and partisan utterances by serving senior military
officers. It is clear that their remarks are in contravention of
the provisions of the Constitution
of Zimbabwe, the Defence Act, the Police and Prisons Acts for
the establishment of professional and non-partisan security forces.
The disparaging remarks by the commanders of the security forces
directed at Mugabe and ZANU PF-s opponents should be contrasted
with the conduct of the Rhodesian security forces in 1980 following
Mugabe-s and ZANU PF-s victory in the 1980 independence
elections. The overwhelming majority of the former Rhodesian security
forces and their commanders respected the outcome of the election
and accepted the new political order. Admittedly, there were some
recalcitrant elements that resisted the new order as evidenced by
the destruction of some aircraft at Thornhill Airbase in Gweru in
the early 1980s. That notwithstanding, the majority of the former
Rhodesian security forces remained loyal to the new government of
Prime Minister Robert Mugabe with some still in service to date.
That is what is expected of professional security forces; respecting
the outcome of an election as an expression of the will of the majority
of the people.
During the liberation
struggle, the liberation forces were considered to be the people-s
forces that fought for the people-s liberation and their protection
from the Rhodesian security forces. The present record of the country-s
security forces is now the exact opposite of this expectation with
the security forces visiting abuses and atrocities on defenceless
civilians; the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.
They have orchestrated ZANU PF-s violent election campaigns
since 2000 that saw thousands of people being killed, tortured,
raped, beaten, intimidated, harassed and their homes and property
destroyed for no other crime than perceived support for the opposition.
Such forces can never be considered to be people-s forces
on account of their acts of terror against the people. Zimbabweans
have been left wondering what has gone wrong with the country-s
security forces that have reduced themselves to become ZANU PF militia.
This was not their expectation when they supported the liberation
struggle in the fight for freedom, democracy, social justice, respect
for human dignity and peace.
During the war,
ZANLA forces operated according to the dictum "The Party commands
the gun and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party".
After independence the maxim translates to "The nation commands
the gun and the gun must never be allowed to command the Nation".
The country-s security forces should serve the people and
not the other way round; they should not serve narrow sectional
and partisan interests that are inimical to public good. That should
never be countenanced in a democracy, as the security forces are
dependent on public support and taxpayer-s money for their
operations, livelihoods and sustenance. Besides, the country-s
constitution and the concomitant Acts of Parliament that provide
for their establishment behove them to conduct themselves in a professional
and non-partisan manner and in the public interest at all times.
It is appropriate
to put the blind support for Mugabe and ZANU PF by some commanders
of the security forces in perspective. The struggle for the liberation
of Zimbabwe began way back in 1890, as soon as the invading settler
forces, dubbed the 'Pioneer Column-, set foot in the
country. That was long before Mugabe was born and before the formation
of ZANU. People should not imagine that without Mugabe and ZANU
PF, Zimbabwe would never have been liberated. Without the sacrifices
of the gallant fighters of the first Chimurenga and subsequent patriotic
actors, there would have been nothing for Mugabe and ZANU to build
on. Without the African National Congress of Southern Rhodesia and
the National Democratic Party (NDP) that Mugabe had nothing to do
with their formation, and without ZAPU, there would have been no
foundation for ZANU to prosecute the liberation struggle. It was
the chain of cumulative experiences and sacrifices that paved the
way for ZANU to wage the liberation war alongside ZAPU. The dogmatic
focus on Mugabe and ZANU PF is thus a historical and counter-intuitive.
It is at best a trivialisation of the contribution of other players
in the struggle in the struggle to liberate Zimbabwe and at worst
an insult on the sacrifices of all those who came before Mugabe
rose to prominence; dead or alive. In any case, Mugabe did not make
a greater contribution for the liberation of Zimbabwe than other
players in terms of sacrifice or the formulation and articulation
of the struggle objectives. One has only for instance to consider
Ndabaningi Sithole-s coining of the maxim " We are our
on liberators" that became the guiding philosophy in the liberation
struggle. Zimbabwe-s liberation struggle was graced by many
a luminary daughters and sons of Zimbabwe among them Mbuya Nehanda,
Sekuru Kaguvi, King Lobengula, Joshua Nkomo, Ndabaningi Sithole,
Samuel Tichafa Parirenyatwa, Leopold Takawira, Herbert Chitepo,
Edison Sithole, Jaison Ziyapapa Moyo, Josiah Tongogara, Alfred Mangena,
to name but a few, whose contribution and sacrifices could by no
means be dwarfed by Robert Gabriel Mugabe. In the circumstances,
the obsession with Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF baffles and boggles
the mind. Why then do Mugabe and ZANU PF have to beat people into
submission to vote for them if their positive contribution to Zimbabwe
is enduring and self-evident? It would appear to be oxymoronic and
a contradiction in terms. Both Mugabe and ZANU PF and their blind
supporters in the security forces need some soul searching to discover
why they have lost popular support.
It has to be
said, however, that the current debate on security sector reform
lacks articulation and focus. Security sector reform is variously
perceived as a component of the Global
Political Agreement, the GPA and the Election Road Map. Whilst
the GPA could be considered to be the political road map, there
is need to craft a separate road map for security sector reform
distinct from both the election road map and the political road
map. Admittedly, the need for comprehensive security sector reform
has to be incorporated in the political road map while the election
related aspects of security sector reform have to be integrated
into the election road map. Security sector reform should not be
subordinated to the election road map that has a short time frame.
It should have its own road map that adopts a holistic embracing
all matters relating to the security sector and the parameters for
its transformation.
Consequently,
security sector reform cannot and should not be a pre-condition
or pre-requisite for the holding of elections. Those aspects of
security sector reform that have an impact and a bearing on the
holding of free, fair and credible elections should be addressed
within the context of the election road map to obviate any negative
role by the security forces in the conduct of elections whilst security
sector reform proper should proceed as work in progress not bound
by the time frame for elections. There are numerous examples of
successful and credible elections that have been held in post conflict
situations before the consummation of comprehensive security sector
reforms. Zimbabwe-s Independence elections in 1980, South
Africa-s democratic elections in 1994 and Mozambique-s
post civil war elections are cases in point.
Analysts, commentators,
journalists and politicians have alleged that Zimbabwe-s security
forces have become law unto themselves and have effectively staged
a coup leaving President Mugabe hostage and powerless. I am not
exactly certain what informs such assertions. Suffice it to say
that their claims are not founded on factual evidence. In terms
of both the country-s constitution and the relevant statutory
provisions, Mugabe as president and commander-in-chief is ultimately
and solely in charge of the operational policy directives for the
security forces. No evidence to the contrary has been presented
by the advocates of a de facto coup to support their claims that
Mugabe is no longer in charge. In the circumstances, the charges
of a military coup remain speculative and conjectural. No one has
demonstrated that the chain of command from the Commander-in-Chief
to the Generals has been breached. On the contrary, the concerned
generals swear to stand by him and to die for him. Would it be conceivable
that up to 200 military officers could be deployed in the countryside
for up to three months, as was the case in the run up to the presidential
election run-off, without Mugabe-s consent and knowledge?
Talk of a military coup is dangerous as it runs the risk of provoking
a public response by the military which could in the end be destabilising
and politically very unhealthy. There is absolutely no doubt that
the country-s security forces i.e. the defence forces, the
police, the prisons officials and the intelligence services have
been involved in excesses and cases of misconduct in breach of the
standing provisions for their establishment, commissioning and conduct.
However, the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the security
forces rests with Mugabe as president and commander-in-chief who
is empowered in terms of the constitution and the associated statutory
provisions to oversee their operational deployment. To this end,
all cases of excesses and the associated misconduct by commission
or omission should be placed squarely at his feet. Any other approach
would be barking the wrong tree. The buck should stop with Mugabe
as president and the commander-in-chief.
There are some
quarters that are against any public debate on security sector reform,
declaring it a no-go area. They need to be reminded that it was
the negative, unprofessional and partisan involvement of the security
forces in the country-s violent elections in support of one
of the players, ZANU PF, and terrorising the country-s electorate
in well documented cases and utterance of derogatory remarks on
ZANU PF-s and Mugabe-s political opponents that have
highlighted the need for security sector reform so as to rein them
in. What is interesting is that their negative and politicised role
coincided with ZANU PF-s declining political fortunes from
2000 onwards. The net effect of their partisan role was to undermine
democratic principles that are founded on respect for the will of
the people as expressed in election outcomes. Any situation that
undermines the will of the people is tantamount to a dictatorship
and people have an inalienable right to resist a dictatorship. Partisan
support by the security forces for ZANU PF compromises their professionalism
and is not in the public interest and is fraught with negative consequences
for the country as it engenders political instability and undermines
the legitimacy of government.
Security sector
reform should be welcomed by all democrats as a positive development
and not be viewed as an unscrupulous attempt to smuggle in a regime
change agenda. Zimbabwe needs to move with the times and adopt concepts
that are consistent with the elevation of human security above the
pre-occupation with the anachronistic and outdated concepts of state
security at the expense of the security of the people. Any vision
or notions of national sovereignty that the country-s security
forces may hold have to be consistent with the national vision and
national conception of sovereignty. Anything to the contrary would
be dysfunctional, destabilising and militate against national cohesion.
The country-s security forces need to be remodelled along
the lines of institutional renewal that is based on respect for
the will of the people, human dignity and the country-s constitution
and all its laws with a focus on human security that in turn fosters
stability, peace, development and prosperity.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
