Defence Policy Beyond Retouching
National defence and security expectedly came up as central issues in the recent presidential election. What with the categorical challenge from the Boko Haram insurgents. And for some analysts of the Nigerian defence situation, March 28 was more about electing a commander-in-chief than a choosing a technocrat if the nation must be kept safe and its territorial integrity defended. What to do with the defence policy must, therefore, be among the priorities of the administration of General Muhammadu Buhari when it takes off on May 29.
Among the documents that the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan would be handing over to its successor would be the draft defence policy that the outgoing administration commissioned some time ago. Although it is yet a draft, the defence policy document may turn out to be one of the most useful notes to the incoming government in this period of transition. Come to think of it, the defence sector is one in which bipartisanship plays out eloquently in many liberal democratic settings.
Given the dynamic of the situation, restrategising on defence policy can only be a work in progress. Defence Minister Lt. Gen Aliyu Gusau duly acknowledged this two days ago when he received the document from the committee he put together to produce it. This amply illustrates the importance attached to rigour in the process. Significantly, even as a draft the document will remain a testament to Gusau’s tenure as defence minister in many respects. For instance, that the document would remain a draft till the end of this administration speaks volumes about how defence policy issues have been managed by the government. However, the point made by Gusau should be underlined: defence policy should be reviewed in order to confront fresh challenges. The peculiar policy environment objectively compels this approach. New defence questions are being thrown up in the security realm. It is the constitutional duty of the commander-in-chief to give leadership in finding answers to the questions as they emerge. That is the way to properly earn that intimidating title. Since the defence environment is dynamic those who are professionally equipped to think about the problems should do their work to articulate relevant policies. Experts would have to continue to work on the policy.
In a way, those working on the important document seem to be conscious of the dynamics of things. The evidence to this effect is contained in the fragments gleaned from the statement made at the presentation of the draft by the committee’s chairman, Air Vice Marshal Muhammed Ndatsu Umaru. The areas requiring urgent attention as listed by Umaru include professionalism of the personnel; combat readiness; the relationship of the bureaucracy in the ministry of defence and the military professionals; comprehension of the interplay of policy and politics by the armed forces and the subordination of the armed forces to democratic control. It is also remarkable that Umaru related the strength of the armed forces to the maturity of the nation’s liberal democracy. For example, if the governance of a nation goes into decay it is most likely that the deterioration could extend to the armed forces.
So it would be suggestible that the review of defence policy should continue with a new administration. What is undeniable is that to make progress in the defence sector the situation calls for more than policy retouching. That is why the rigorous exercise already begun should continue with further useful perspectives to enrich the process. After all, it is almost 10 years that the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo produced the subsisting “National Defence Policy”. It is, therefore, an understatement that the defence policy is due for a review. Even as at 2006, some experts viewed the document as “short-term policy framework”. Some of the elements embodied in the 2006 document that deserve through-going review include those of equipment, funding, infrastructure, research and development. The civil-military relations deserve a special review. Specifically, the relationship between the military and the media as partners in national development and security should be honestly examined. The military should be given political education because their operational environment is determined by politics. Part of the education, for example, is for defence authorities to avoid being dragged into partisan politics. Non-partisanship should be their article of faith. The military should maintain fidelity to its traditions. The controversies generated by the roles of the military related to the last elections and the build-up to the exercises should be studied by those formulating policy. The armed forces are not strengthened when they can easily be put in partisan pigeonholes. Similarly, the public too should be educated about the peculiar nature and traditions of the military as well as the enormous challenges facing the patriots serving in the armed forces.
Beyond this, the Buhari administration may have to even re-examine the Nigeria’s defence policy objectives within the context of the 1999 Constitution. The tension episodically thrown up in the civil-military relations is one that could only be eased ultimately in the realm of policy. The President-elect is expected to redefine squarely the direction of the nation in the area of defence in this season of rising expectations.
It would be a surprise if defence has not featured prominently in the few meetings Jonathan and Buhari have had since the transition began a few weeks ago. In finding the building blocks for the defence policy, recent events should be instructive. First, with the progress report on the conduct of the Boko Haram war, ample lessons should be drawn from it in looking into the future. To what extent was the performance of the military in the war affected by policy? Questions engendered by the conduct of the war should be answered in the course of putting the policy together. Secondly, a rethink of the role of the ministry of defence ought to be part of the review. The implementation of the policy made should be the responsibility of the ministry of defence. By extension this should inform the commander-in-chief’s choice of a defence minister. The appointment of a defence minister should not just be another political job. The defence minister should be sufficiently equipped by his or her background to implement the policy.
In addition, while operational matters are exclusively for defence authorities to handle, the formulation and implementation of defence policy should be of public interest. It is a veritable subject of public debate and questioning. By doing so, the government would be accountable in the defence sector and its performance would be scrutinised. The sensitivity of defence authorities to the discussion of defence policy should be tempered. It is part of the democratic control of the military for the public to ask questions especially when things are perceived to be going wrong. The mystification of defence issues has no place in a liberal democratic setting. This is a crucial element that a defence policy should accommodate.