Veterans' political party - long-term threat to civilian control of military?

 

A group of armed forces veterans have formed a political party called Parti Kemakmuran Negara (PKN).

They are seeking recognition from the Registrar of Societies so they can field in GE15 some 50 candidates they have identified in seats which have military camps and a large concentration of retired personnel.

They say the main reason for PKN’s formation is to fight for quicker resolution of long-standing issues concerning salary and pensions.

Also, another motive is that PKN is dismayed at the current state of national governance. They imply they can do better, claiming to have capable and highly educated people in their ranks.

Presumably, these people should be given a chance to prove their mettle.

In a democracy, there is nothing wrong with political activism by interest groups. And the armed forces veterans are indeed that - an interest group.

Like trade unions or any other interest group, they have a right to enter the political fray. But there is something unsettling about armed forces veterans inserting themselves into the political arena as a separate party, as distinct to individual veterans contesting as candidates under the banner of existing political parties.

This may be owing to the notion that the armed forces, in a democracy, are regarded - and properly so - as politically neutral.

When and if veterans of the forces band together as a distinct political party, won’t they in time incubate a threat to the neutrality of the services and to a cardinal tenet of a democracy, which is civilian control of the military?

Malaysia has never had a problem like a politically intrusive military.

In the immediate aftermath of the May 13 riots, members of the military brass suggested to then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman that they be given charge of the nation until such time order was restored.

Fortunately, the Tunku sought advice on the military’s offer from the home affairs minister, Ismail Abdul Rahman than whom - in an extremely troubled time - there was no more clear-eyed seer.

Ismail told the Tunku that once he ceded control of the country to the military, “You can forget about getting it back.”

General Ne Win’s seizure of power in Myanmar in 1962 and the military’s recent brutal reimposition of despotism over civilian rule by Ne Win’s current-day legatee, Min Aung Hlaing, is an object lesson in the wisdom of Ismail’s warning to the Tunku.

In the history of government-military relations in Malaysia, there has not been any instance of civilians having to tell the military to back off.

Save perhaps in one case in 1984, when then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was obliged to hurry generals Zain Hashim and Jaafar Onn into early retirement because of the duo’s sympathy with the rulers’ position in the constitutional amendments crisis that pitted Mahathir against the rulers.

Otherwise, there has not been any instance wherein the civilian authority and the military in Malaysia have had disputes over their separate jurisdictions.

Still, the spotted history of military men dabling in politics has not been a happy one.

There was a time, in the prolonged cause celebre that followed Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking from Umno and government in September 1998, there were cases of retired generals joining the political fray.

Some veterans joined PAS and were shaping, like a few retired diplomats and senior civil servants - all riled up over Anwar’s travails - to contest in GE10 that was held in November 1999. But matters did not pan out that way.

It was only in GE13 in May 2013 that an appreciable number of military veterans plunged into the electoral fray, with some fielded as PKR candidates.

They lost except for an admiral who won in the Lumut parliamentary seat.

The most notable thing about those who were fielded and lost in GE13 is that after showing a lot of enthusiasm in the campaign to get elected, they vanished, post-hustings, into the ether, not to be heard of again.

The disappeared did not say why they no longer, presumably, had any appetite for the fray. Safe it was to assume these spit and polish men found politics a messy business. About the only similarity between politics and the military is that both occupations put a premium on night vision - the ability to see in the dark.

A skilled politician needs that vision so that he can lever the unspoken motives of collaborators (and even adversaries) to the advantage of aims, policies and programmes he or she is striving to attain.

Night vision is a wholly different thing to a military man. To him, it is the ability to anticipate and prepare for the imponderables that can upset well-laid plans.

If a military man wants to take the political plunge, it is better he does it within the contours of a political party rather than form a separate party for the achievement of specific objectives pertaining to the military. - Mkini

---

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for more than four decades.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.