Shortly after news broke about the death of 14 South African soldiers in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a cacophony of voices filled the air in this country about the tragedy. Most of the comments were negative and disrespectful.
But the most disconcerting thing was the joint meeting of parliament’s portfolio committee on defence and of security. It was quite clear that some parties saw that as an opportunity to score political points against the governing arrangements in the country.
The language, tone and attitude used by some were simply disrespectful of the fallen heroes and their families. It did not matter that we still had soldiers on the ground in the Congo and that they needed the support and respect of their country.
The full debate that followed a few days later was slightly better. But it could have waited until the remains of our fallen heroes were home and the situation of our soldiers still in harm’s way in the DRC was clearer.
Perhaps even this piece could have waited until all our heroes were laid to rest, except that by that time this input would have become somewhat irrelevant in the face of ongoing discourse.
The shrill calls by some MPs for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from the DRC must have been a morale killer for our men in uniform and music to the ears of our enemies. The likes of Paul Kagame of Rwanda, who openly challenged South Africa to a fight, must have rubbed his hands in glee.
The defence force is non-partisan and belongs to all of us as a nation. It is the very embodiment of our nationhood and statehood. It exists to protect our sovereignty and the territorial integrity of our country. Governments might come and go but the defence force should be constant. Members of parliament, in particular, should know that.
In times of war, we close ranks behind our soldiers, despite whatever political differences we might have. That’s what almost all countries in the world do – support their soldiers, especially those in ongoing operations in the field.
To start with, that joint meeting of the committees, should have been held behind closed doors. In that way, the members would have shared information and debated in a manner that prevented the whole world from viewing that unfortunate spectacle. In self-respecting countries, ongoing army operations matters are not aired publicly for all, including enemies, to hear.
Some MPs seemed to boast about having information relating to the weaknesses of our army.
Where did they get that? As MPs, they are supposed to get proper and legitimate briefings from the relevant state institutions. Do they have private informants in the army or other sources? If so, what are those sources? Foreign?
Mindful of the saying that in order to prevent war you should prepare for war, many of us have been critical of the gradual but unwise under-funding of the defence force.
We did not buy the refrain by some that we should not keep our defence force strong because we have no enemies.
It doesn’t work like that. The world order can change very quickly, but it is folly to try and strengthen your army when you’re under threat. The arming, training and preparations of your defence force should be an ongoing and continuous exercise.
The Europeans are now scrambling to build their defence capabilities now that Donald Trump has thrown them to the “wolves”.
Once the dust has settled, let the relevant state institutions, obviously discreetly, do the necessary assessments of our defence needs, and then parliament vote for the appropriate resources to enable things to happen.
The public and reckless discourse on the defence establishment must stop. Let a dignified and respectful handling of defence matters endure.
- Mangena is a former cabinet minister, an academic and a former Azapo president
