The missing fulltime defence minister
THE political administration of Bangladesh suffers from two major weaknesses. One is the concentration of all powers in one hand, rendering pluralism a farce; the other is the non-existence of a full-time defence minister that makes civilian control of the armed forces dysfunctional.
Every government - democratic or otherwise - has a defence minister. We have seen a minister for livestock or forestry, but, strange as it is, we have not yet seen a minister for defence. Four ministries play important roles in a cabinet and shape the future of a country. The security and integrity of the state is of utmost importance. Every penny spent on defence needs justification and priorities.
The defence minister contributes his or her wisdom and experience to add value to the money. Law and order is there to protect the life and property of citizens. Obviously, the home minister in charge has a strong say in the government. Money is the source of energy of any government. Allocation of financial resources after threadbare discussion is of vital importance. The Foreign missions are the outposts of a country. Their contribution in interstate relationship and the mind-reading of neighbours and distant countries on war or peace and business contribute towards strategic and policy goals.
Like siblings in a large family, the ministers fight hard in the cabinet for resources for their respective ministries. Democracy is never noiseless, nor is it without dissent. The senior ministers hold the core circle to discuss the important national issues before reaching the cabinet. The experienced ministers of home, defence, finance and foreign affairs, duly led the prime minister, constitute the inner circle of a cabinet. The absence of a defence minister in strategic discourses makes the case of the country's defence weak and barely comprehensible.
We have not seen a fulltime defence minister in the four decades of Bangladesh. The defence ministry has been run on a makeshift basis by the chief executive of the state. As a result, there is less understanding of defence forces and their needs in the civil society. How an already overburdened prime minister can give full attention to such a sensitive and intricately specialised professional ministry is the question. Unlike Darwin's saga of the missing link, the persistent important missing organ is the defence minister in Bangladesh. Consistently undermined in the faulty political culture, some advocate that we need neither a defence minister nor the defence forces. The armed forces remain, in most cases, the least understood institution of the state.
Threadbare discussion on defence needs and priorities cannot be based on knowledge only. Even with that imperfection if the PM speaks forcefully and gets into argument with other ministers for the appropriate share of the services, she may lose her weight as PM. Other ministers will naturally feel hesitant to question her views on defence. The prime minister cannot penetrate the complexities of specialized defence needs. Obviously, due to constraints of time the prime minister relies mostly on the opinion of her staff. Therein lies the problem of the ministry of defence. A defence minister could have benefited from the technical experts, civil bureaucracy, views of the cabinet colleagues and any other source deemed appropriate.
Trained to be the crisis handlers, the armed forces can only be controlled via the culture of respect towards the law and constitution. If the country sizzles in crisis due to political failure, it creates an opportunity for the generals. A soldier is oath-bound to give his life under the orders of his superior. He has discretion but no capacity under intense circumstances to establish the right order from wrong. The injection of pride in profession and blind faith in his superiors prepares him for the supreme sacrifice. When the political instruments fail or take the nation to the brink of civil war the greedy generals get an opportunity to move the simple-minded soldiers to take charge, sending both politics and the profession of arms on a downhill slide. A vital condition for exercising effective control over the armed forces understands them and their psychology.
The prime minister is the chief executive of the state, leads the house in the parliament and, on top of everything, and heads the majority party. It is not only a fulltime job but needs lot of hard work at all times. Heading a party, exercising control over the hangers-on, overseeing party establishments, exercising control on mushroom organizations like student, labour and women front, is an overbearing job. On top of everything, if the prime minister has to take sensitive decisions on national defence in terms of training, organisation, manpower, equipment and many other decisions like promotion and appointment of the senior officers, I am afraid she will need ten-heads like the mythical demon king 'Rabana' or ten hands of 'Durga Devi', preferably both.
My experience, spread over two armies and many years of research during retirement, led me to think that the armed forces has lesser understanding of the civilian control because the political elements have persistently avoided building a bridge between the forces and the government. The armed forces are a serious matter, many problems crop up due to lack of institutional and mature approach towards the defence forces. The nation had never known why so many tragedies had taken place in the forces, the last one being at Peelkhana, and what corrective measures have been taken to avoid the recurrence of tragedies. There is strong advocacy for the civilian control of the armed forces. Without the institution of the minister of defence the civil control of armed forces mostly remain amateurish and occasionally draws arrogance of power from both sides. A whole time defence minister will understand and exercise effective control over the forces with responsibility.
There are two parallel offices now over the armed forces headquarters, one renamed now as the Armed Forces Division under the prime minister's secretariat, the other is the Defence Ministry. What is the purpose and modality of these two parallel offices is not clear, nor can we find semblance of such arrangement anywhere in other democracies. The long serving military ruler is accused of everything bad in Bangladesh but surprisingly his designed tentacle for the forces seems convenient for the democratic rulers.
We must learn from history, nevertheless, not to digress all the time and miss the present and future. Two years ago, I wrote for a defence minister not knowing what was awaiting our fate. We are lucky to be able to revive democracy that came as a gift from an unconstitutional source with little effort from our leaders. The appointment of a fulltime defence minister will strengthen the sibling of democracy.
The author is the founder DG of the SSF
Every government - democratic or otherwise - has a defence minister. We have seen a minister for livestock or forestry, but, strange as it is, we have not yet seen a minister for defence. Four ministries play important roles in a cabinet and shape the future of a country. The security and integrity of the state is of utmost importance. Every penny spent on defence needs justification and priorities.
The defence minister contributes his or her wisdom and experience to add value to the money. Law and order is there to protect the life and property of citizens. Obviously, the home minister in charge has a strong say in the government. Money is the source of energy of any government. Allocation of financial resources after threadbare discussion is of vital importance. The Foreign missions are the outposts of a country. Their contribution in interstate relationship and the mind-reading of neighbours and distant countries on war or peace and business contribute towards strategic and policy goals.
Like siblings in a large family, the ministers fight hard in the cabinet for resources for their respective ministries. Democracy is never noiseless, nor is it without dissent. The senior ministers hold the core circle to discuss the important national issues before reaching the cabinet. The experienced ministers of home, defence, finance and foreign affairs, duly led the prime minister, constitute the inner circle of a cabinet. The absence of a defence minister in strategic discourses makes the case of the country's defence weak and barely comprehensible.
We have not seen a fulltime defence minister in the four decades of Bangladesh. The defence ministry has been run on a makeshift basis by the chief executive of the state. As a result, there is less understanding of defence forces and their needs in the civil society. How an already overburdened prime minister can give full attention to such a sensitive and intricately specialised professional ministry is the question. Unlike Darwin's saga of the missing link, the persistent important missing organ is the defence minister in Bangladesh. Consistently undermined in the faulty political culture, some advocate that we need neither a defence minister nor the defence forces. The armed forces remain, in most cases, the least understood institution of the state.
Threadbare discussion on defence needs and priorities cannot be based on knowledge only. Even with that imperfection if the PM speaks forcefully and gets into argument with other ministers for the appropriate share of the services, she may lose her weight as PM. Other ministers will naturally feel hesitant to question her views on defence. The prime minister cannot penetrate the complexities of specialized defence needs. Obviously, due to constraints of time the prime minister relies mostly on the opinion of her staff. Therein lies the problem of the ministry of defence. A defence minister could have benefited from the technical experts, civil bureaucracy, views of the cabinet colleagues and any other source deemed appropriate.
Trained to be the crisis handlers, the armed forces can only be controlled via the culture of respect towards the law and constitution. If the country sizzles in crisis due to political failure, it creates an opportunity for the generals. A soldier is oath-bound to give his life under the orders of his superior. He has discretion but no capacity under intense circumstances to establish the right order from wrong. The injection of pride in profession and blind faith in his superiors prepares him for the supreme sacrifice. When the political instruments fail or take the nation to the brink of civil war the greedy generals get an opportunity to move the simple-minded soldiers to take charge, sending both politics and the profession of arms on a downhill slide. A vital condition for exercising effective control over the armed forces understands them and their psychology.
The prime minister is the chief executive of the state, leads the house in the parliament and, on top of everything, and heads the majority party. It is not only a fulltime job but needs lot of hard work at all times. Heading a party, exercising control over the hangers-on, overseeing party establishments, exercising control on mushroom organizations like student, labour and women front, is an overbearing job. On top of everything, if the prime minister has to take sensitive decisions on national defence in terms of training, organisation, manpower, equipment and many other decisions like promotion and appointment of the senior officers, I am afraid she will need ten-heads like the mythical demon king 'Rabana' or ten hands of 'Durga Devi', preferably both.
My experience, spread over two armies and many years of research during retirement, led me to think that the armed forces has lesser understanding of the civilian control because the political elements have persistently avoided building a bridge between the forces and the government. The armed forces are a serious matter, many problems crop up due to lack of institutional and mature approach towards the defence forces. The nation had never known why so many tragedies had taken place in the forces, the last one being at Peelkhana, and what corrective measures have been taken to avoid the recurrence of tragedies. There is strong advocacy for the civilian control of the armed forces. Without the institution of the minister of defence the civil control of armed forces mostly remain amateurish and occasionally draws arrogance of power from both sides. A whole time defence minister will understand and exercise effective control over the forces with responsibility.
There are two parallel offices now over the armed forces headquarters, one renamed now as the Armed Forces Division under the prime minister's secretariat, the other is the Defence Ministry. What is the purpose and modality of these two parallel offices is not clear, nor can we find semblance of such arrangement anywhere in other democracies. The long serving military ruler is accused of everything bad in Bangladesh but surprisingly his designed tentacle for the forces seems convenient for the democratic rulers.
We must learn from history, nevertheless, not to digress all the time and miss the present and future. Two years ago, I wrote for a defence minister not knowing what was awaiting our fate. We are lucky to be able to revive democracy that came as a gift from an unconstitutional source with little effort from our leaders. The appointment of a fulltime defence minister will strengthen the sibling of democracy.
The author is the founder DG of the SSF
__._,_.___
