Demilitarisation: A viable reform option
The government of Lesotho has, in the recent months reiterated its commitment to engage in security reforms as one way of searching for peace and stability in the country. If finally implemented, such reforms would hopefully bring to an end the perennial centrality of the country’s security establishments in political conflicts. Since Lesotho is a democratic country, it is imperative that deliberations about this vital step not be confined to high offices, but be in the public space where all the interested stakeholders can make an input. It is on the basis of this understanding that this article has been written.
This article examines one extreme option of security reform available for consideration by Lesotho. This option is demilitarisation. This examination is made from a peacebuilding perspective and premised on two theoretical underpinnings namely that (a) demilitarisation is a structure for peacebuilding, and (b) military expenditure hinders economic development.
Contextual framework It is important that some of the key concepts in this discussion are clarified from the onset. Such concepts include peace, security sector, and demilitarisation. For the purpose of this discussion peace is defined not as merely the absence of war, but as the absence of violence in all its types. There are three typologies of violence namely direct, structural and cultural violence.
Direct violence amounts to physical aggression and is manifested in various forms of intentional bodily harm, including killing, maiming, siege, and any other form of force to the body that causes harm and affront to basic human needs. Structural violence, on the other hand, manifests itself in the presence of social structures that promote exploitation and repression.
It usually enables some actors in society to benefit from the unequal exchange and the plight of the disadvantaged. Cultural violence relates to an existence of any aspect of culture that can be used to justify, or legitimise direct or structural violence. It makes the acts perpetuated as a result of structural and direct violence to seem as normal.
The notion of security sector denotes both formal and informal security formations in a given country, including those civil institutions that play an oversight role over the operation of these security institutions. In this article, the focus is mainly on only one element within the Lesotho security sector — the military.
Like many other social science concepts, demilitarisation has been defined in numerous contexts depending on particular usages. For its purpose, this article adopts Barbey’s definition that takes demilitarisation as “a process of dismantling military forces and disposing of weapons that leads, if demilitarisation is total, to a state of non-militarisation”. In order to make a rational decision about their military, Basotho need to understand what the roles of the militaries throughout the world are generally taken to be. This is attempted in the next section.
Roles of militaries Internationally, the roles of militaries can be categorised into two — traditional and secondary roles. Authors who have written about militaries generally agree that “the traditional role of any military has been territorial defence against attack or deterring threats from the forces of other states, in addition to projecting power abroad in defence of territory and the state’s interests”.
There are several secondary roles of armies that include the following: First is the internal order. Usually, armies are called to come to the assistance of the police whenever the latter is overwhelmed with its operations of maintaining internal order.
Second is disaster management. States use their militaries as a support for other government agencies in times of natural disasters or other emergencies. Third is international peacekeeping. With the nature of international politics increasingly shifting to the formation of a “globalised village”, where the problems of a particular country become a concern for other countries, the phenomenon of military engagement abroad is increasingly becoming popular.
Fourth is national pride. Militaries can also be a sign of status for their respective countries. Nations that have highly sophisticated militaries have always commanded greater respect within the international politics than their counterparts with weaker militaries.
Lastly, militaries are a source of employment. Militaries serve as a source of employment for many people of different ages in all countries. In the wake of increasing lack of employment opportunities, particularly in the Third World countries, many youths are forced to make professions within militaries.
an international overview There are 26 countries worldwide that do not have armies (are at the stage of non-militarisation). Of these 26 countries, seven initially had armies but decided to disband them. The rest never had armies from the start or never created them when they attained independence.
Much as most of these countries are small both in terms of geographical size and population, some are far larger than many states that currently maintain armies. It is important to note that though without armies, these countries remain sovereign. All but three of these countries are full members of the United Nations.
These countries are found mainly in Central America and europe. Generally, these non-militarised countries have higher standards of living and are more peaceful than their militarised counterparts. Costa Rica is usually given as the shining example of how countries can benefit by disbanding their militaries.
Pleased with the dividends of demilitarisation that Costa Rica had reaped, former president Oscar Andrias Sanchez once boasted that:
“International development agencies recognize that Costa Rica today has a standard of living comparable to that of industrialised countries. It is universally accepted that the extraordinary advances of my country in the fields of education, health, housing and social welfare are basically due to the fact that we do not dedicate our resources to the purchase of arms. The absence of the army has strengthened the Costa Rica democracy system, making it one of the most consolidated democracies of Latin America.
“To us, these are the dividends that would be within the grasp of all third world (sic) countries if they did not dedicate a very important part of their resources to the purchasing of arms.”
Currently, Mauritius remains the only African country without a military. Apart from its thriving economy, Mauritius is rated as the most peaceful country in Africa. These are, to a greater extent, the benefits of the country’s bold decision of never establish an army.
There is also a second set of countries that have undergone demilitarisation. These are the countries that have substantially reduced the sizes of their armies without disbanding them completely.
One such country is el Salvador that dissolved various components of its armed forces and reduced the number of the members of the army by almost a half within two years. In the place of the dissolved components, a National Civilian Police (PNC) was created. In order to restrict the role of the remaining military units, the mission of the military was redefined.
The military role remained the national defence and it could only be involved in matters of public security during national emergencies and only under the authorization of the president with prior approval of the legislature.
Military in Lesotho For the first 13 years of independence, Lesotho was one of the few countries without armies. An army only came into existence in 1979 when the Lesotho Para-military Force (LPF) came to be forged out of what was the LMP’S riot squad, the Police Mobile Unit (PMU), in response to attacks by the South African-backed Lesotho Liberation Army (LLA). The Lesotho army underwent various name changes until it was named the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) in the 1990s.
As stated in the Lesotho Defence Force Act of 1996, the primary role of the Lesotho Defence Force is to protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lesotho and uphold the Constitution of Lesotho. Its secondary roles include the “assistance in the preservation of life, health and property; provision and maintenance of essential services; upholding law and order in support of the police as directed by Government; support to State Departments as directed by Government; compliance with international obligations like peacekeeping support operations and regional military cooperation”.
however, an historical overview of the Lesotho’s politics shows that the country’s army has been more involved in the political conflict that has characterised Lesotho in the past three decades than performing any of the above-stated roles. Non-performance of these roles results from at least two factors namely lack of need, and/or incapacity.
Lesotho’s geographical position renders irrelevant the need for a traditional role of a military. As noted earlier, this involves the “territorial defence against attack or deterring threats from the forces of other states, in addition to projecting power abroad in defence of territory and the state’s interests”. South Africa completely surrounds Lesotho hence the only possible threat of external aggression to Lesotho.
The Lesotho army cannot, under any circumstances engage their South African counterparts in war due to the latter’s might. It can also not project any power abroad. It is for this reason it becomes necessary that Lesotho gets pragmatic and demilitarise and get into relevant defence pacts with South Africa.
This would, in effect be just a formalisation of the status already observed internationally that South Africa provides security for Lesotho. For instance, the Military Balance — an international organisation concerned with military issues — writes on its website that “Lesotho’s small armed forces are charged with protecting territorial integrity and sovereignty, though South Africa in effect acts as a security guarantor”. The inability of the Lesotho’s army to provide a territorial defence against foreign attack has been proven in the few incidents the army was needed to act. The 1982, 1985 attacks by the apartheid regime in South Africa, 1988 bus hijack by LLA elements during the Papal visit, as well as the 2009 ‘mercenary’ attacks of the State house are all evidence to this fact.
A closer look at the secondary roles of the LDF reveals that the army only significantly engages in the upholding of law and order in support of the police. Support for other government departments has not been efficient enough and on numerous occasions the country has been forced to seek assistance from the South African forces during disasters.
Lesotho’s army’s involvement in international peace initiatives is mainly limited to practice sessions and the country’s army has never sent soldiers for peace-making missions in countries facing wars. This is in contrast to its South African counterparts that have thousands of officers in peacekeeping missions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR) just to mention two.
The army’s involvement in maintaining law and order in Lesotho does not come without problems. Despite some observable successes in some cases, the brutality the public usually suffers from the army has proved beyond doubt that the army has not been trained for this role. This is not surprising as Willian Adama once warned that “there’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people”. It is therefore important that the country stops misplacing the army, instead capacitate the police enough to adequately handle any situation concerning the upholding of law and order.
Why it’s important to demilitarise As authors Matlosa and Pule noted way back in 2001, the Lesotho army has always been marred by controversy and steeped in intrigue. Its controversy has always spanned from its politicisation and use by incumbent leaders as an instrument not only to ward off external threat, but also to emasculate internal opposition.
The destructive role the Lesotho army has played in the country’s politics is a matter of public record and does not need to be repeated here. The centrality of the Lesotho’s army to political conflict, coupled with the facts stated in the above paragraph, necessitate introspection to establish if Lesotho cannot do better — both politically and economically — without an army.
It is important to note that this call for demilitarisation of Lesotho is not entirely new as it has been made in different platforms before. In recent weeks one column of this publication has touched on the subject several times. A fact-charged demilitarisation, not emotional one, can in the long-term prove to be a very good peace investment for Lesotho.
Politically, the country stands to benefit as the absence of the army would pave a way for political settlements to political conflicts. Since its establishment, the army has proved to be a hindrance to peaceful resolution of conflict as political leaders have from time to time resorted to it for resolution of political conflicts. Demilitarisation would also allow for the adequate capacitating other departments — such as police and disaster agencies — whose main roles appear as secondary roles for the army.
Demilitarisation of the Lesotho would ensure economic dividends as it would allow the resources currently channelled to the army, to be channelled to other productive sectors. It is never an ideal situation to have an economically poor country like Lesotho channelling huge percentages of its budget to unproductive sectors like armies.
Continued on page 14...
The Lesotho army cannot, under any circumstances engage their South African counterparts in war due to the latter’s might. It can also not project any power abroad. It is for this reason it becomes necessary that Lesotho gets pragmatic and demilitarise and get into relevant defence pacts with South Africa.
