Community Leaders' Column

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 3, Issue 7, 9 July 1985, Page 5

Community Leaders' Column

A number of people have said to me over recent months, that they wondered why \ didn't "comment" when it came to my turn to write a few words for our Community Leaders' Column. They have indicated, for example, that it might be more interesting to read some views on how the differences New Zealand has had with the United States over the nuclear ships issue are affecting the Army at the working level, than how many visitors 'have passed through Waiouru recently or other matters of "lesser importance!" Perhaps a word or two therefore on why you do not normally see the military bursting into print on subjects such as these, might be of interest. The tradition by which the military is kept under strict civilian control i.e. the control of the elected government, is a very strong one in most western democracies. The priniciple of civilian control requires that while the military themselves may — and do — have a place in the advisory process for governments on defence and security matters, they are never the final arbiters of

defence policy, and consequently do not make statements or express opinions (excepting rarely at the highest levels) on policy matters. They are there to do what is. required of them by the government of the day. Stemming from this constitutional and traditional requirement for civilian control, are regulations which make it quite clear that individuals in the military must be, and must be seen to be, apolitical. That does not mean that we do not hold the same basic rights as other citizens — we do, and we may vote, hold political views, join political parties, and seek election to Parliament. As military servants of the Crown however, liable for employment on operational tasks or for duties in aid of

the civil authorities, we as servicemen have to accept certain constraints on our political activities. These constraints include dissociation from the more publicly active type of support for political campaigns (local or national) while we remain active members of the armed forces. Following on from this, regulations also exist which prohibit statements by servicemen on matters of policy affecting the armed forces or national defence. There have of course been occasions, even in New Zealand, where officers have publicly opposed the government over matters of defence policy. The invariable result has been their dismissal from the service. A celebrated case occurred

in the late 1930s when four colonels, having tried all they could to change government policy through official channels, became so frustrated that they went public on the issue. In an article on this incident in the New Zealand Law Journal many years later a New Zealand historian concluded an account of the case by noting that "The colonels had introduced a dangerous innovation into New Zealand political life, and for this they deserved their dismissal." Officer-politicans, a commonplace in other political traditions, had previously played no part in New Zealand politics. The speed and firmness of the General Staffs reaction (i.e. the colonels' dismissal) emphasised the convention that the officer corps should remain apart from political life. All of which means that if a serviceman feels strongly about an issue of policy, then the way to take up the cudgels is to resign the service and contest a parliamentary seat. So next month — if invited — back to more mundane matters!

Col.

Bruce

Meldrum