Defence Minister sowing seeds of anarchy.

Zimbabwe Service chiefs may just be getting the wrong signal from the Defence Minister bolstering their insubordinate conduct which may return to haunt the Minister sooner rather than later

Defence Minister Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa ranks as one the best trained military cadres from the Liberation Forces.

He trained at Mbeya ZIPRA camp in Zambia, Heliopolis military training school in Egypt, the Frelimo Camp at Bagamoyo Tanzania, Beijing School of ideology, Nanking Infantry training school and another school of military engineering in China.

One wonders if he understood anything he was taught about military ethos on duty, integrity, discipline and honour if his response to the question on whether or not the military commanders still hold to their expressed declaration on saluting civilian leadership without Liberation credentials is anything to go by.


First Mnangagwa should be the first to acknowledge that the Military salute is more a symbol of respectful greeting of commissioned officers by their non commissioned subordinates in the military ranks which is also extended to political leadership as the circumstances demand.

Second, with his military training background Mnangagwa must know that the words used by leaders have a significant bearing on behaviours that will be exhibited by their subordinates.

Third Mnangagwa is reasonably expected to know that the Zimbabwean military is drawn from Zimbabwean societies and cannot be seriously expected to act out of the confines societal norms and values and the body of law that applies to all other civilians by the mere act of being members of the security forces.

Fourth in his position as a Minister, Mnangagwa should be familiar with the behaviour concept that in organized enterprise, subordinates tend to exhibit behaviour that they perceive or know to be tolerated by their command superiors.

This knowledge should have guided the Minister in his answer to a very pertinent question that sought to direct him to the sources of the past anarchy that has forced the coalition government to commit the nation to an expensive and structured national reconciliation and healing programme of action that would otherwise not be necessary if sources of impunity are proactively managed with tact.

In the military like in any other structured institution words are used to convey orders and commands and must not just be uttered recklessly but also followed up with decisive action on the part of the leaders to compel subordinates to behave as ordered.

Subordinates will continue to exhibit behaviours that may be out of sync with sociological circumstances unless their leaders take the bold steps to point out the vices associated with the behaviours.

That is how all managers set performance boundaries for subordinates and moderate behaviours.

For the defence Minister to stand in the August house that Parliament is or at least must be and pronounce that his professional subordinates have no obligation to salute anyone outside their command structure was most irresponsible and dishonourable of the Minister.

By further falsifying the explanation of why it was not insubordinate conduct for military chiefs to refuse to salute any other civilian leader than the President on account they are only constitutionally bound to pay such homage by the pledge of loyalty to him they swear to on being appointed, the Minister deliberately sowed seeds of anarchy and dissent within the military that will one day return to haunt civilian leadership of the country out of office.

As the president is the Head of State, the government manages the affairs of the State for and on his behalf as the custodian of the seal of the country. Any homage and pledge of loyalty that is undertaken to the President by the Military command on being commissioned as officers is homage and loyalty to the State and the powers bestowed in the Presidency to form the government and allow it to manage the country’s affairs.

The oaths and or affirmations that Commissioned officers make before the President and or his appointed representative are more than just homage to the President but to that office as the highest administrative office of the country that embodies the nation.

The salute and pledge of loyalty thus goes beyond the incumbent President and is a show of respect of the national head and his government as well as the people of Zimbabwe who democratically chose to be led by the President.

The mischief of the defence Minister in attempting to remove this morality behind the military salute and centralising it in the Presidency is a dangerous and sinister attempt to set the military leadership on a collision path with government which is only understandable in circumstances where the President is self imposed and does not act on behalf of the nation.

For if he acts on behalf of the nation he would be the first one to be offended that his chief advisors in government are of no consequence to the military leaders and unworthy of being greeted with the same respect he is by the forces.

Tracing the origins of the military salute will show that it is nothing more than a symbol of greeting, of mutual respect, trust and confidence initiated by the junior in rank, with no loss of dignity on either side.

It is simply a sign of loyalty and respect to the Service of which a member forms part and the general tone and spirit of the Service is indicated by the manner in which airmen/airwomen offer the salute and officers return it.

To thus advocate that the military commanders have no obligation to salute the premier or any other Senior government officer in office at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief of the same military is a cynical attempt to cause conflict between the service chiefs and the government they are established to service.

Maybe the Defence Minister may want to revisit this matter and see how his explanation ties in with ethical customs that underpin the way we show respect to each other in our various customs when we greet each other if the Military commanders are encouraged to respect only the Head of State and no other.

The greeting can never be made a mandatory constitutional obligation alright but in military institutions where it forms the integral component of the means with which to show respect for seniors it becomes dangerous if the combatants are taught to believe that their respect for civilian leaders starts and ends with the President.