Old men talking, young men dying

variant of something Herodotus once said.
The most common interpretation of that quote is the more literal one: that old men — most obviously politicians — declare wars and soldiers, who are usually young men, go and die in the battlefields.

In this interpretation, “old men” are symbolic of politicians and others of the civilian classes who are not trained to fight wars, while “young men” are those in the various branches of military.
Thus war becomes “politicians talking and soldiers dying”.
Another less common interpretation has been that old men talk of the wars they survived in years gone by, while young men cannot talk of the wars they are fighting — they simply die in those wars.

Should they live through those wars, those young men will one day be the old men talking.
Whichever interpretation one chooses, the power of that statement lies in the mixed feelings that have always been generated by the relationship between politics and the military.

For many people, the soldiers must stay in the barracks and generally not be seen or heard unless there is a war being fought.
Ironically though, these same people who would prefer the soldiers to shut up and let the civilians do the declarations of war are the very same ones who lament the deaths of young men in wars whipped up by “old men”.

Can we really expect the “young men” who die in wars to stand by quietly, awaiting the “old men” to do the talking and then get called up to die in wars?
Surely that would be asking too much of a soldier; asking him/her to have no say in how his life will ultimately be ended!
It is in this context that one can look at a recent statement by Major-General Martin Chedondo that members of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces must be allowed to participate in national politics.

Most Zimbabweans with access to the media will by now know what exactly Maj-Gen Chedondo said, but for the sake of those who missed it or did not get it all, he will just recap here.

“A national defence force the world over is there to protect the national politics, national integrity, the executive and other systems that form part of the government.
“By virtue of this, defence forces automatically become a political animal.
“Soldiers cannot be blind or blinkered on what they are protecting. We have to be alert and know where we came from and where we are going.

“Politicians must first agree on national ideals, ethos and objectives then differ in tactics but not on the strategic aspect of what Zimbabwe is.
“As soldiers, we will never be apologetic for supporting Zanu-PF because it is the only political party that has national interests at heart.”
Like a man trained in the ways of war, his approach was to the point and has no ambiguity.

A major criticism has been that Maj-Gen Chedondo said something to the effect of “protecting the executive” and this bit of his statement has been taken alone and out of the context of his full statement.
His full statement breaks down the various defence roles of the military and these roles are not limited to protecting the executive: he also speaks of national politics, national integrity and “other systems that form part of the government”.

How then can Maj-Gen Chedondo be said to be constricting the role of the military to being a mere tool that serves the interests of the executive?
Any reading of his full statement shows he is talking about the totality of the state of Zimbabwe: the people who vote in the executive and the constitution that provides the guidelines on how the state is to be governed and protected from existential threats from both within and outside.

Another problem some people have had with Maj-Gen Chedondo’s statement pertains to him saying they will support Zanu-PF.
He says they will do this “because it is the only political party that has national interests at heart”.
Again, the over-riding sentiment and import of his statement is the “nation”.

In other words, if other parties demonstrate that they have the national interest at heart then they too will get the support of the military.
He added that: “(the) defence forces must exhibit the national outlook.
“As soldiers we must never apologise when we are discharging our noble role of protecting the integrity of our nation, hard-won independence and our precious resources.

“We cannot be seen supporting a political party that is going against the ideals of a nation, which came by as a result of a liberation struggle, which saw many of the country’s sons and daughters losing their lives.
“As soldiers we must support ideologies that we subscribe to, I for one will not be apologetic for supporting Zanu-PF because I was part of the liberation struggle.”

For some, this was a throwback to a similar statement by then Brigadier-Gen Douglas Nyikayaramba in 2011 (he is now Maj-Gen).
And this stance by the military is consistent with a statement made by Zimbabwe’s security chiefs in January 2002 when they said they were not prepared to offer their services to politicians whose main agenda was at cross-purposes with the tenets of the liberation struggle; which tenets are the founding principles that define

Zimbabwe as a sovereign nation whose integrity both physically and as a state is inviolable.
The then Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Gen Vitalis Zvinavashe, said: “We wish to make it very clear to all Zimbabwean citizens that the security organisations will only stand in support of those political leaders that will pursue Zimbabwean values, traditions and beliefs for which thousands of lives were lost, in pursuit of Zimbabwe’s hard-won independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests.

“To this end, let it be known that the highest office in the land is a straitjacket whose occupant is expected to observe the objectives of the liberation struggle.
“We will, therefore, not accept, let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people.

“The law will take its place to ensure that Zimbabwe’s Independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty — which to large extent depend on upholding the values and good name of the security organisations — are preserved.”
Some critics said this was a violation of military-civil relations; that the military should stay away from politics.

What the critics were essentially saying was that the military should remain the “young men dying” while politicians should be the “old men talking”.
But there has never been a corresponding shower of criticism for the stance of the Turkish Armed Forces.
On April 27, 2007, a Turkish military website carried a reminder that the defence forces were the guardians of the constitution and as such would defend it should the country come under threat of being Islamised.

“The armed forces of Turkey are the final defenders of Turkey’s national values and an Islamist cannot be president of Turkey,” was their bold declaration.
Constitutionally, Turkey is a secular state and despite a relatively huge Muslim population, the military has made it clear it will not allow politics and religion to mix as they believe this will destroy the fabric that makes up the Turkish state.

In Zimbabwe, the military has made it clear it will not allow people to bring in a brand of quisling politics that will destroy the fabric that makes up the Zimbabwean state.

For the Turks, the military’s position is a legacy bequeathed to them by the founding father of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
The military will protect this legacy.
Zimbabwe’s legacy is bequeathed by the blood of the countless people killed to make the nation free.
The military is saying it will also defend that legacy.

Before 1923 when Ataturk founded the secular republic of Turkey, the country was ruled by a monarchy dominated by the Ottoman sultanate which blended political and religious authority.
Ataturk believed this religio-political set-up was holding the country back and hence the need to maintain a separation of church and state.
Since then the military has served as the custodian of this founding principle.

And let no one take the Turkish military’s position as an idle threat: that organisation is believed to be the second largest standing armed force in NATO, after the United States, with a combined strength of over one million uniformed serving members.
Every fit heterosexual male Turk is required to serve for time periods ranging from three weeks to fifteen months.

It is a powerful unit and is to be taken seriously.
Some people may then ask why the Zimbabwe military needs to be so vocal about its role in the country’s political affairs.
They will say we never hear of the US, the British or the Australian military making political noises.

Maybe that is because those countries do not face existential threats from imported brands of politics that directly attack the principles on which their states are founded.

Their militaries — and indeed the vast majority of their populations — are aware of the roles they must play in defending their national sovereignty.
But that is not so in Zimbabwe, where we believe that attacking the state is a demonstration of “freedom of expression and association” and whatever other “freedoms” are thrown around in the name of democracy.

Some of the “old men” of Zimbabwe have shown that they do not have an appreciation of the nation’s founding principles, and so the “young men” are declaring where they stand on the matter.
The “young men” are simply saying they are prepared to die to defend their country, not to die for idle “old men”.

As long as they feel their country is under threat, “young men” like Maj-Gen Chedondo will continue saying the things they say.