The divisive issue of political leaders and military uniform
The blogosphere has been set abuzz since President Samia Suluhu Hassan appeared in public in military uniform. The appearance divided Tanzanians into three camps – those who approve of that choice, those who don’t, and the many whose only concern was whether her Excellency looked good in combats or not!
Whatever your opinion, the discussion highlights one of the paramount needs of our times – that it is not enough for people to know whether our leaders can deliver on matters of national importance or not, but they also need to know whether they have what it takes to pull off military attires or not!
So, as the President was being flanked by the most powerful generals in the nation, probably exchanging sombre words about local and international news, or simply complimenting each other on their newly acquired puppies (I hear the German shepherd is very popular among the Tanzanian elite nowadays), the most important question in people’s minds was – did she pull it off or not?
The general consensus is that she did – with flying colours! It worked. And we all know that the voice of the people is the voice of God – all that is needed now is for Ikulu to make public the number of the tailor who made this feat possible for the nation to share in this great success.
That said, those of us who spent many of our early years around soldiers are not taken away easily by the sight of people in uniform. Long before the unfortunate sights of soldiers in combats and sneakers started appearing, we saw our fathers wearing proper military attires day in day out. And we knew what putting on a military uniform meant.
For starters, military uniform is not a fashion choice. It is an identity – and one which military officers are extremely proud of. Talk to any of them and, regardless of rank, one thing that you will quickly discover is how they hold the uniform in high regard.
It is quite interesting to observe the sight of new recruits who have just been given their new uniform. You will usually notice them walking with a swagger in their steps, as if they have springs in their knees. It is the uniform thing. They might have advanced degrees but that uniform is the highest point of their lives, one which they will proudly wear until they die.
And when they do, that is a sight to behold. A soldier is a soldier from the beginning to the end. That’s why with uniform, a soldier is a somebody. Without it, regardless of what a person is outside the army, he is a nobody. Worse still, a civilian.
You remember how purebloods (those with magical capabilities) in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series viewed Muggles (the pejorative term for those who had no magical powers and were completely oblivious to their existence)? Seems like you get it. The non-uniformed are the Muggles of the military world.
Among officers, uniform highlights seniority, distinguishes officers of one service branch from others, and indicate the kind of activity that one is involved in at the time.
For example, navy, air force, or infantry officers can be distinguished from each other by their service uniforms which are, in Tanzania, white, (navy) blue, and dark green, respectively. This is important – soldiers belong to the same service branch from the beginning to the end.
Similarly, when servicemen put on full dress uniform it shows that there is a ceremony or a parade around. This uniform is usually colourful, reflecting the old days before the military and the rest of the world became more functional. Men in uniforms commanded so much respect anywhere. No wonder they were infamous for leaving babies wherever they made stops. Or at least that’s what you gather from old novels.
The combats are more of work dresses, made for fieldwork or combat duty. They are made for durability, flexibility and camouflage, the T-shirt and jeans of the military world, so to speak. And this is what Her Excellency wore on that day.
Now, I am learning to assume that when the powers that be choose to dress the president in that manner then it is not out of recklessness but that they have a higher game that they are playing, like making a certain statement, but this is Africa that we are talking about – one cannot be sure.
In my opinion, the biggest issue here is the possible blurring of the lines between civilian leadership and the military. A cardinal rule of operation in democratic nations is for the military to stay out of politics and politicians to stay out of the military. But when leaders make a habit of appearing in combats they are, knowingly or not, emphasising an identity which might have unpleasant repercussions in the future. We might be scoring own goals by certain decisions.
Very unnecessary.
