MPA IV
Master in Public Administration in Governance
2009-2011
International Institute for Social Studies,
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Ministry of Defense and the Freedom of Association
Interest representation by a military union
By
Hendrik Wielson
Student number: FHRISS0409037
Supervisor: Dr. Freek Schiphorst
Paramaribo, December 2011
This paper was submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the Master
of Public Administration (MPA) in Governance degree at the Institute of
Social Studies.
1
Acknowledgement
It is a privilege to have had the opportunity to pursue a master degree in Public Administration
and Governance. This program has been very instructive and has contributed a lot to my
development. Before my admission to this program, I did not know what to expect, but after the
first speech of Hans Lim A Po, I knew we were in for some serious and intensified work.
After more than one year, a lot of lectures, exams, individual and group assignments, it was time
to write our individual study paper. Not an easy task, but with the right guidance of the FHR Lim
a Po Institute, Dr. Marlene Buchy, my personal mentor Dr. Freek Schiphorst and Mrs. Ollye
Chen A Sen, I was able to reach the end.
As an individual you will not be able to bring this study to a successful end without the help of
other people. That is why I am grateful to all those who have contributed in one way or another,
to bring my studies at the Lim A Po Institute to a successful end and transform my paper to a MA
research paper.
Caforio said: “If a convergence between the military establishment and civil society is in progress
and has brought the two areas of life and work much closer together, why is there a unionization
issue for the armed forces, why is there opposition to a collective bargaining for military
personnel ?” (Caforio, as cited in Heinecken, 2009:482-483)
Thank you.
2
3
Table of contents
Acknowledgement
2
List of abbreviations
6
List of appendices
7
1. Introduction
8
a. Background and research problem
8
b. Research objective
8
c. Research Questions
9
d. Relevance and limitations
10
e. Methodology
11
f. Structure of the paper
11
2. Literature review
13
a. Introduction
13
b. Military Organization and the reason for a union
13
c. The right to associate / Freedom of associate
14
d. The right to unionize and the right to collective bargaining
16
e. The right to strike
17
f. International treaties
17
g. Government representation
19
h. Success stories from the literature
21
4
i. Europe Organization of Military Association
24
j. Summary
25
3. Interest representation within the army in Suriname
26
a. Introduction
26
b. History of army union in Suriname
26
c. What is written in the different laws
28
d. The Office of the Inspector General
29
e. The Commission of Consultation
30
4. Findings
33
a. Findings of Suriname
33
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
37
a. Conclusion
37
b. Recommendations
39
Bibliography
41
Interviews
43
5
List of abbreviations
SANDU- South African Defense Union
SANDF- South African Defense Forces
Euromil- European Organization for Military Associations
EEC- European Economic Community
UK- United Kingdom
USA- United States of America
IDF- Irish Defense Forces
DoD- Department of Defense
MoD- Minister of Defense / Ministry of Defense
NASA- National Army Spouse Association
RBAFP- Review Board on Armed Force Pay
IG- Inspector General
NAS- National Army of Suriname
Bomika- Bond van Militair Kader in dienst van de Surinaamse Krijgsmacht
SKM- Surinaamse Krijgsmacht
ILO- International Labor Organization
UDHR-Universal Declaration of Human Rights
NCO‟S- Non-Commissioned Officers
6
List of appendices
-
Questions of the interview with soldiers of lower ranks
-
Questions of the interview with Junior and Senior officers
-
Table of findings
List of people interviewed
-
Deputy Director of Financial, Material and Logistic Affairs, (captain) Truideman
Letitia,28/11/2011
-
Lieutenant Colonel Mr.Marga Van Lingen, Senior Judicial advisor of the Ministry of
Defence, 10/08/2011
-
Lieutenant Colonel Jardim, Inspector-General of Armed Forces of the National Army of
Suriname, 9/11/2011
-
Head of Internal Audit Unit, Major Barron Albert, 28/11/11
-
Class of 10 Cadets (aspirant officers in training), 23/11/11
-
Corporal Nagessar M, 24/11/11
-
Corporal Hupsel S, 24/11/11
-
Corporal Nortan P, 24/11/11
7
1. Introduction
a. Background and Research Problem
Freedom of association, that is, the right to associate, is a fundamental right of every worker.
International treaties and the Constitution of Suriname guarantee this right. Despite the guarantee
in treaties and the Constitution, soldiers of the National Army of Suriname are not allowed by law
to associate.
Freedom of association is also, according to Bernhagen, one of the measurements of democracy.
“Democracy is a political system in which: the government is held accountable to citizens by
means of free and fair elections” (Found in Christian et al., 2009:31). The indicators of
democracy (relevant for this research) are freedom of organization, freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly, freedom of association, trade unions, freedom and collective
bargaining.(Christian et al., 2006:33).
Freedom of association can be used as a tool to represent the interests of soldiers. Unions or other
forms of representation are being used in different armies around the world, especially in Europe,
to represent the interests of army personnel. In Suriname, forces like the police, customs and
correctional officers have unions which represent them in different matters. Even the civil
employees of the Ministry of Defense have their own union, the “Algemene Bond van
Burgerpersoneel in Dienst van Defensie” (ABBD).
The right to join a trade union (as part of the freedom of association) is also a fundamental right
of all workers. The unions can have a positive or a negative impact. If used well, the process of
representation can have benefits for the employer and employee alike. For the employer, it can
give a better performance and better output because of satisfied workers and for the employee it
can bring better salary, better working and secondary conditions.
b. Research Objective
The purpose of this study is to review the constraints which prevent soldiers of the National
Army of Suriname to join in a labor union to represent their interests and fully enjoy the right to
associate as granted by the Constitution of Suriname.
8
The aim of interest representation is to take care of the collective and individual interests of the
group or the individual. By associating, the interest of the individual becomes a collective interest
and the group is gaining a stronger position to negotiate with the government. Pressure can be put
on the government if soldiers use a trade union and if the union is allowed to participate in
collective bargaining with the employer of soldiers i.e. the government. The aim of the study is to
improve the interest representation for soldiers of the National Army of Suriname.
The researcher has been a soldier for almost 13 years of which the last three years as a lieutenant
second class. During this period, he experienced many constraints in the interest representation of
soldiers. Problems like bad working conditions, unequal pay compared to other forces, unequal
career opportunities and lack of an adequate institution to represent their interests.
Some of these problems may be the result of:
-
the lack of interest representation for soldiers;
-
the absence of a properly staffed Commission for Consultation;
-
the absence of a properly staffed Office of the Inspector-General;
-
the legal constraint of the right to associate of the soldiers;
-
the loss of trust in the Chain of Command.
This paper will examine whether these are indeed causes of the many problems in the National
Army of Suriname.
c. Research Question
The main research question is:
What are the constraints which prevent military unions in the National Army of Suriname?
Sub - Questions are:
1. What are the global trends of army trade unions?
9
2. What is the history of unionization (or the lack thereof) in the National Army of
Suriname?
3. What do laws and regulations hold for the National Army of Suriname and are the laws
and regulations constraints for an army union?
4. What is the government policy on interest representation within the National Army of
Suriname?
5. Is there representation within the National Army of Suriname for the soldiers?
6. What are the grievances soldiers have that might be redressed by unionization?
7. Can the Military union contribute to a higher degree of democratization of the Society of
Suriname?
d. Relevance and limitations
The relevance of this study is to find a better way to represent the interests of the soldiers of the
National Armed Forces of Suriname. The institutions which are supposed to represent the soldiers
such as the Chain of Command and the Consultation Boards, as will be seen in the findings, are
not adequate to take care of the interests of the soldiers. The presence of a union in other forces in
Surname like the Police as well as in armies around the world has shown the value of organized,
collective interest representation for soldiers.
The limitations of this research are that the idea of a union in the National Army of Suriname still
is a taboo. The sentiments of the military coup in 1980 (a coup which was partly the result of the
refusal of the government to accept the union of the soldiers) are still fresh in the minds of the
military top and senior citizens of Suriname. Whenever a military union is mentioned, it
immediately becomes an issue related to a possible coup. Another limitation is that soldiers are
not willing to talk about this subject because of the notion that a military union is forbidden in the
National Army of Suriname. Absence in Suriname of literature on this subject is also a limitation;
the subject has not been researched as yet.
Additionally, the findings of this research are limited and cannot be generalized due to the small
number of people interviewed.
10
e. Methodology
The methodological approach consisted of desk research and field research through interviews. I
have used the internet extensively, since it was difficult to find material in Suriname about
interest representation of soldiers.
Desk research
Literature on interest representation in the army in Suriname was difficult to find. To review the
history of military representation in Suriname, books, news papers and articles and other
documents of writers were used. The findings of the different armies are compared in a table
which is attached as an annex to the paper. Also the international development of unions and
especially military unions has been reviewed. The different laws of Suriname regarding the
freedom of association and the specific laws for the army will be discussed to see whether these
laws are constraining the interest representation of soldiers. Also the International Labor
Organization Convention (ILO) C87 will be looked at to see whether Suriname is in compliance
or not.
Interviews
To examine what the current status is of an army union in Suriname and what the government
policy is on this subject, interviews were conducted with government officials of the Ministry of
Defense. Despite the fact that the total number of people interviewed is small an attempt has been
made to interview as many as possible members of staff at different levels of the Defense
Organization. The three levels interviewed are: (i) Senior officers (Majors, Captain and Colonel),
(ii) Junior Officers (Lieutenant and Captain) and (iii) Lower ranks (Private and Corporals). The
questions asked in the interview were short a straight to the point, because researcher try to
prevent the give the idea that he was lobbying for the establishment of a union in the NAS. The
questions are also added to the annex of the paper.
Apart from these military ranks, most of the senior officers interviewed are in a policy making
position within the Ministry of Defense.
f. The Structure of this paper
11
This paragraph gives an overview of the content of different chapters of this research. In chapter
1 an introduction will be given about research topic. In the introduction background information
and the research problems will be presented. The research objectives and the relevance of the
research will also be presented in this paragraph. The research question which is the guideline of
the research is also part of this section of the paper. At last the methodology and the approach
which will be used to research the topic is presented in the last section of this chapter.
Chapter 2 contains the literature review in which the different books and information about
military unions, which have been researched, will be discussed. In this chapter the focus will be
on the international information about union in other countries, but also on the international
treaties regarding human rights and the right to associate.
Chapter 3 will focus on Suriname. The history of army unions in Suriname will be described and
discussed, but also the different laws and regulations regarding the right to associate, the right to
collective bargaining, the right to unionize and the right to strike. The different institutions set up
by the government for interest representation in the army will also be discussed.
Chapter 4 gives the findings of Suriname resulting from the interviews of different members of
staff of the Ministry of Defense. The findings about what lives among the soldiers about freedom
of association, their grievances and their thoughts about the different government interest
institution of the army will be presented.
Chapter 5 will be used to present the conclusions and recommendations.
12
2. Literature review
a. Introduction
Representation within the military can be defined as: “The establishment of a union(s), a group(s)
and/or an association(s), composed of members of military forces or of civilian trade unions with
collective bargaining powers, for the purpose of representing the members of military forces, on
remuneration and conditions of service, and other such matters as may be agreed from time to
time” (Gannon, 1992:11). The goal was to research if there are similarities or differences
between the different forces regarding the above mentioned rights. Is there a pattern in the
different armies when it comes to dealing with these rights of the soldiers? Armies of Europe,
North America and Africa are examined, to be able to derive at conclusions. Internationally,
certain fundamental rights of human beings are protected by treaties. In some instances, these
treaties assign to the government of the respective member state the power to decide whether the
army and the police are entitled to these fundamental rights.
b. Military organization and the reason for a union
It is important to know, what a military organization is and what civilians have to do to become
soldiers. Civilians have to undergo an intensive path of training before becoming a trained
soldier. Throughout his career, a soldier has to undergo courses to bring his qualifications up to
the requested level and to maintain this level.
The military forms the basis of state security and is one of the few services which can be relied on
to the fullest. Soldiers must always be ready to take over the tasks of other government services at
short notice, like in the case of a strike by the police, correctional officers or firemen (Gannon,
1992:62-63). Gannon compares the civil service in general with the military force and finds the
following differences:
-
“a soldier is subject to a very demanding code of discipline and which places great
pressures on him;
-
a soldier does not have the right to strike;
-
the right of consultation on conditions of employment is restricted or barred;
13
-
a soldier is subject to transfer, without prior notice, appeal, or adequate allowances in lieu;
-
working odd hours is seen as part of his job;
-
a soldier is on duty 24 hours, which cannot be said of any other duty;
-
a soldier must always be prepared to work under the most difficult circumstances”
(Gannon, 1992:62).
In the post war-cold war era the armies changed from mass armies to small armies with a
specialized core, and from conscript to civilian armies. These changes change the army from a
lifetime occupation to a short time job where the soldiers retire at young age and have to return to
the civilian society. The result was the lost of the high commitment of the soldiers which was
replaced by situational, shortened one where both parties are less dependent upon each other. The
change to volunteer army also resulted in a battle with the civil society over employees, where the
army seems to losing the battle due to a better pay in the civil society. The result is the call for an
independent representative who can bargain for better pay and working conditions. Trade unions
are seen by the opponents of trade unions as an intrusion into the unified structure of organization
of the army. They are also seen as competing illegitimately for the control over the loyalty of
employees, but international pressure has pressured armed forces to accommodate the individual
rights of soldiers (Heinecken, 2009:478-483). In most of the armies, reviewed by the different
writers and researchers, the reasons for establishing a union is the fight to improve the soldiers
pay and conditions (working and service), poor management and organizational development.
But in some rare cases it was “given” and promote amongst the soldiers to become a member of
such an organization, for example in Germany (Gannon, 1992:24-30).
c. The right to associate/ freedom of association
The right to associate can be defined as: The right to join others for a legal cause without
interference. It is an individual right to join with other individuals and collectively express,
promote, pursue and defend common interests (uslegal, n.d.).
Looking at the different Constitutions of countries in which armies are established, we see that
everyone recognizes the right or freedom to associate (Worldwide Constitutions, n.d.). The right
to associate is a fundamental right of every employee and is internationally recognized by
14
different organizations. The Universal Human Rights Declaration, the Convention on Civil and
Political Rights, the International Labor Organization Conventions C87 and C68, all recognize
the right to associate of employees, without distinction as to political, economical, social, cultural
and racial background (University of Minnesota, Human rights Library, n.d.). There might be
some differences but the core of the right is the same. This means that there is a certain pattern,
where the right to associate is recognized internationally by the different treaties and the
constitutions of the different nation states. The members of the different armies reviewed, by
Bartle (2006) and Heinecken (2009) (a.o.), are mostly excluded or have a restricted form of this
right. In Britain, Canada, United States of America, and South-Africa, soldiers are not forbidden
to associate but are forbidden to join trade unions or professional unions if they get involved in
political activity of the union (Bartle, 2006:214). The idea is that if soldiers participate in
political activities, civilian control over the army will be lost, because they will also be part of the
institutions that must control them (the army). “The most important ideological control over
military is the belief in the principal of civilian supremacy”. By becoming a soldier, certain
civilian rights are curtailed because of the nature of authority and discipline in the army. The
bases (rank, hierarchy, leadership, discipline and service) on which the army is organized, is very
important to be able to perform the military role (Ward, 1979:462-469). Historically, France,
Britain and Italy had to deal with a revolution and Canada was part of this heritage as a former
colony of both Britain and France. Based on this historical fact that, before the revolution,
soldiers were in control of everything and the fear that it could happen again, the new
governments of these countries believe that control over the army must be in the hands of
civilians. Another concern is the decline of the military discipline because of the collective
participation of the different ranks in the same association (Bartle, 2006:213). The discipline is
very important for monitoring military efficiency. A good discipline within the unit is the basis of
a good discipline within the army. The structure and the hierarchy of the army must stay intact to
ensure that orders can be given to subordinates without questions being asked (Ward, 1979:468).
In the former socialist countries, however, the idea of a trade union in the army is a normal thing.
Socialism is based on working together and in association to reach a common goal. Mostly it is
done in the form of a union. In Slovenia for example, the process of unionization of the army was
not such a difficult one, because of the socialist heritage (Bartle, 2006:215). In some other
countries the union was established after a long legal battle in court for recognition in South
15
Africa, Canada and Australia, despite the fact that the right to associate is not for bidden by their
Constitution (Bartle, 2006:93/214). In the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden,
Austria and Norway, the right for soldiers to associate has been accepted in the army for a long
time now. In Germany, Belgium and Denmark, a unique system of association exists, in which
the soldiers are equal to the civilian employees in enjoying the same rights, except for the right to
strike. In Germany they are even allowed to be members of parliament. The idea here was that by
joining such bodies, political parties, trade and labor unions and parliament, another element of
control was exercised over the military forces in preventing them from once again becoming
politically powerful (Gannon, 1992:21-27). In Germany, unions developed with the foundation of
the post world war II, where the soldiers were seen as part of the “citizens in uniform” ideal on
which this new force was developed. The German unions are even involved in negotiating for
better working conditions for their members (Carre, 1990:29). On the 12th of April 1984, the
European Parliament adopted a resolution (1-323/81) on the right of armed forces to form
associations. The instructions of this resolution are as follows:
-
“Calls on all member states of the European community to grant the servicemen the right ,
in peace time, to establish, join and participate in professional associations in order to
protect their social interest;
-
Recommend that all legal provisions of individual states be approximate, taken into
account the relevant articles of international human rights treaties” (Gannon, 1992:39-40).
d. The right to unionize and the right to collective bargaining
The right to unionize and the right to collective bargaining are also restricted in most of the
armies reviewed by Bartle (2006) and Heinecken (2009) (a.o). A union for army personnel is seen
by many to be in conflict with the unique nature of the military activities that are characterized by
order and obedience. That is why most countries ask their soldiers to renounce part of their civil
rights on the premise that: “the restriction of basic rights that are guaranteed in a democratic
constitution is justified by the idea that without limits on rights, the military would not be able to
protect democracy against threats from outside” (Heinecken, 1995:1). Military representation is
not allowed in some countries, such as France and the United States, in which the government has
created a negotiating body to represent the interest of the soldiers (Gannon, 1992:35). The United
16
Kingdom also did not allow representations for their armed forces. The first military union in the
British armed forces was formed in 1919, but it was short-lived. It was seen by the authority as a
socialist threat which had to be demolished (Bartle, 2005:1). Even in the former socialist
countries of the former Soviet Union, the right to strike was renounced for soldiers. The
acceptance of the right to unionize and collective bargaining differs. In some armies this right has
become part of the military culture and is accepted by everyone, for example in Sweden,
Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands (Gannon, 1992:21-27).
e. The right to strike
One trend that is accepted worldwide is the fact that soldiers are forbidden to strike. In literature,
only one country, Sweden, was found which accepted the right of soldiers to strike. Even in the
former socialist countries and the countries with a long history of army unions, soldiers are
deprived of the right to strike. It would be a disaster if in case of war or attack by another country
or a natural disaster the army is on strike. Of course it happens sometimes that soldiers go to the
street to put pressure on the government to air their grievances. The South African soldiers went
into strike against the government and the Chain of Command of to accept their union, the South
African National Defense Union (SANDU) (Bartle, 2006:930).
The different constitutions also recognize the right to strike, but it can be constraint by law if and
when needed. The different countries used the possibility the constitution gives to deprive the
soldiers the right to strike. Military unions will not strike because a strike would be inappropriate
and inconsistent with the military mission (Gannon, 1992:29).
International treaties
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also protects the right to associate of
everyone. Article 2 of this declaration says: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or
international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is
independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”(The
Universal Declaration for Human Rights).
17
Article 20 of the declaration says: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association” and “(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” that means
internationally treaties also protect the right of everyone when it comes to associate. The
constitutions and the different national laws should be in compliance with the international
treaties signed and ratified by the government (The Universal Declaration for Human Rights).
Human rights are fundamental rights which everyone needs to be able to exercise his life as
human to the fullest. Another treaty where Suriname is a party to is the Convention on Civil and
Political Rights. This treaty also protects the freedom of association of everyone in article 22.
Article 22 is as follow:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to
form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are
prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the
imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their
exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labor
Organization Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the
law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention
(UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights).
The first paragraph of this article gives everyone the right to freedom of association which also
includes the right to form and join trade unions. But in the second paragraph of the same article
the possibility is left open for the government to decide if members of the armed forces and the
police are entitled to this right.
The ILO convention C87 also protects this right in article 2 and ILO convention C98 in article 1.
18
But just like in the other treaties mentioned above, article 9, paragraph 1, of the ILO Convention
C87 says: “The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the
armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations”.
Democracy is defined as “a political system in which the rulers are accountable to the citizens
through regular electoral participations” (Berghagen, 2009:28). Democracy also means ruled by
the people. The people can rule by participating in the process of decision making by voting for
the candidates which must represent it. Beside the elected leaders, institutions and other
organizations also must be in place which can be used by the society to influence government
decisions. There are a few measurements of democracy, but the Freedom House Index will be
used. The Freedom House Index sees political rights and civil liberties, with each sub
dimensions, as two overarching dimension of democracy. Important for this research are the civil
rights which also contains freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational
rights, the rule of law, and personal autonomy and individual rights. These are the preconditions
of democracy. The indicators of democracy (important for this research) are: freedom of
expression, freedom of organization, freedom of association, trade union freedom and collective
bargaining and freedom of assembly (Berghagen, 2009: 29-34). The government has different
institutions which guard the democracy, such an institution is the Army. It is important that such
an institutional also enjoy democracy, e.g. freedom of trade union and collective bargaining. If
such an institution must bear the rights it will not be able to protect them properly. According to
these measurements of democracy of the Freedom House Index, the more the people can enjoy
these rights, including soldiers, the higher degree of democracy a country have (Berghagen,
2009:29-34). The role of democratic institutions is to help safeguard unlawful handling of the
government against its civilians. The military unions are such institutions which can safeguard
the democratic rights of the soldiers against unlawful and arbitrarily act of the government.
g. Government efforts to institute representation
Literature revealed that governments try to establish other institutions in the army which could
represent the soldiers. The three most found representative bodies in the army established by the
government are: the Chain of Command, the Inspector of Armed Forces and the Commission of
19
Consultation (organized consultation). The government recognizes these three institutions for
taking care of the interests of soldiers, instead of a union. These institutions do not affect the
unique nature of the army or influence the military discipline required.
The Inspector General of Armed Force
The Inspector General of Armed Forces (IG) is an advisor to the Minister of Defense and an
agent of (ex) soldiers and defense personnel. In other countries, he investigates allegations of
misconduct by army officials at the rank of colonel or below. The IG can be seen as an
Ombudsman of the Army and has an independent role in the Defense force. He reports directly to
the Minister of Defense and has access to every part of the defense organization, all documents
and can even attend meetings (Inspecteur Generaal der Krijgsmacht, Minister van Defensie of the
Netherlands). The IG is not the same as a union or another interest representation for the soldiers.
He is still seen by the soldiers as part of the defense organization.
The Commission of Consultation
The Commission of Consultation or organized consultation is another form of consultation,
which is used by the government in the different countries but it was mostly not accepted by the
soldiers. The reasons for not accepting such an institute lies in the manner of staffing (who are the
members?) and in what power or mandate it should have. In Australia for example, the
government tried to set up a negotiating body comprising of senior military staff and civilians as
well as in South Africa where an internal communication structure was not accepted by the
soldiers as their representative. The reason for the refusal to accept these bodies is that they are
seen as part of the Chain of Command or as another government institution. The soldiers want
their own selected institution to represent them. The fact that they are entitled to these rights also
gives the soldiers the encouragement to demand an independent organization as their
representative (Bartle, 2006:216).
The Chain of Command
The Chain of Command was supposed to be the representative body of the army. Over the years,
the soldiers lost trust in the Chain of Command as their representative. The Chain of Command is
in a position where, on the hand it implements the policy of the government regarding the army
20
and on the other hand it represents the interests of its subordinates. The government always can
pressure the chain of command with substitution, in case it should try to pressure the government
in the interest of the soldiers. This leads to distrust of the chain of command and the call for an
independent representation for soldiers, a union (Bartle, 2006:213). In fact an institution is
needed which really knows the problems and the grievances of the soldiers. The members of such
a representative body should also be members of the group (ranks) they represent.
h. Success stories from literature
South African National Defense Forces
The South African National Defense Forces was formed on 27 April 1994. Some changes had to
be made from an all-white conscript army to an all volunteer force. The change of the system and
the uncertainly created by the transformation process, created a lot of tension under the military
personnel of South Africa. The conditions of work and pay were very bad and they were not
looked after by the Minister of Defense or the chain of command. The need for some form of
representation increased among the soldiers. The Constitution recognized the freedom of
association of everyone including the soldiers.
According to Heinecken some of the driving forces for unionism present were: the influence of
the Constitutional rights, pressure of a dominant trade union culture, the decline in military status
and the organizational changes (Heinecken, 1995:7-12).
The motive is definitely present in the form of lack in the interest representation for soldiers. This
is one of the prerequisites, according to Harries-Jenkins, that should be present in the military
environment before unionism can become feasible. The chain of command and the institution set
in place by the government where not able to represent the interest of the soldiers. The existing
grievance procedures were inadequate and there were no mechanisms for soldiers to plead their
case (Harries-Jenkins in Heinecken, 1995:12-22). The constitution of South Africa recognized the
freedom of association for everyone but the defense legislation prevented the soldiers from
unionizing (Bartle, 2006:87). The soldiers of the South African Defense Forces were in the mood,
another prerequisite, to find some form of independent representation. The mood increased when
members of other forces and civilians in the Department of Defense started to join unions with
21
the passing of the Labor Relation Act (LRA) 66 of 1995. Only members of three forces, including
the armed forces, where prohibited to join. Most of the soldiers now serving the SANDF are from
an underprivileged background and they have experienced the benefits of a trade union (Bartle,
2006:89). The political climate was also receptive to military trade unionism, especially among
the majority black population. The result of a survey showed that 45 per cent of all respondent
were behind the idea of a union for the armed forces. With the acceptance of the Constitution of
South Africa the opportunity to unionize came closer to reality. The only obstacle was the
Defense Act which prohibited the freedom of association for soldiers (Bartle, 2006:88-89).
The South African National Defense Union (SANDU) was formed on the 26th of August 1994
and it immediately stumbled on resistance of the SANDF leaders, who were afraid that trade
unions would politicize the military, create division within the ranks along racial line and
interfere with operational effectiveness (Bartle, 2006:91). The SANDF introduced some form of
internal communication structure to deal with individual and collective grievances, complaints or
suggestion after labor unrest among the soldiers. The SANDU took the SANDF to the
Constitutional Court in May 1999, asking the court to order the SANDF to respect the freedom of
association of all soldiers, and the court ruled in favor of the SANDU. On 20 August 1999
chapter 20 of the General Regulations of the SANDF was promulgated, which allowed the
soldiers to establish and join trade unions. The Union has not undermined morale and discipline,
nor divided the chain of command or politicized the armed forces as was expected. In South
Africa, the unions have given the soldiers a voice in typical issues affecting conditions of service
and job security. The relationship between the SANDF and the SANDU and other unions is not
amicable and it will take some time for both parties to come closer to each other.
Irish Defense Force
The Irish Defense force was established on 1st October 1924 as an all volunteer and neutral army.
The establishment of a union in the Irish Defense happened over a short period of time. Ireland
was not a highly unionized country and because it is an island, it was isolated from Europe.
Neither the government of Ireland nor the army had a policy developed on interest representation
for armed forces, the reason being the neutrality of Ireland. Its soldiers were trained in countries
like UK, USA and France where unions are not allowed. The relationship with the government
22
was based on trust, loyalty and instant response to orders (Gannon, 1992:46). The Irish Defense
force came in contact with the outside world after Ireland joined the European Economic
Community (EEC). Changes in the IDF, internally and externally, made the duties of the soldiers
increasingly complex. Also the assistance to the Civil Authority increased, which led to the
expansion of responsibility, expertise and changes in duties of all personnel involved (Gannon,
1992: 54-56).
The IDF fell behind in allowances paid compared to the public servants and other comparable
forces, because of the lack of consultation between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
military authorities. Different revisions of pay and allowances were undertaken but in a most
unsatisfactory manner. In 1969 a working group was formed allowing soldiers to argue their case.
But the military representatives were barred from making recommendation in the reports of the
group. In 1979 the long fought party with the Civil Service was achieved, but it came too late and
was outdated. The Pay, Allowances and Conditions Board said this was not suitable, because of
the nature of the army, the training they had to undergo and their specific task. Over the years that
followed the soldiers of the IDF were not satisfied with their payment and other conditions of
work. These were the motives to start a union.
In 1988 the mood to establish a union started with publication of an article in a newspaper about
the bad conditions of soldiers and their families. The Government tried to interfere by setting up
an inter-departmental committee on defense forces pay, allowances and conditions of non
commissioned personnel. For the soldiers it was a move made too late by the government,
besides they also lost confidence in the Ministry of Defense and in politicians in general. The
wives of the soldiers also got involved and started protesting, to support and attract attention for
the situation of their husbands. They formed the National Army Spouse Association. In 1989 the
situation almost escalated, when the MoD said that the army would get no further review of
defense forces pay and conditions of service and that they already had been treated special; the
MoD denied that there was a problem in the army.
The opportunity to set up a union came after the general election, when a new MoD was
appointed. On June 30, 1989 the Representative Association for Noncommissioned Ranks of
Defense was set up and this was welcomed by the spokesman of the opposition. The government
23
then installed another commission to review pay and conditions of service in the SANDF. This
commission was welcomed, because the soldiers were well represented in the staff. In September
1989 the government adopted a more open approach to an independent representation for
soldiers. In November 1989, the MoD agreed on the formation of a representative body,
constituted under defense regulations. In May 1991, the Personnel of the Irish Defense Force got
permission to establish a representative association when the Minister of Defense signed the
Defense Forces Regulation (DFR) S6. (Gannon, 1992:1)
Conclusions: From the above success stories, the following can be concluded. The pre-requisites
for successful implementation of a representative association (military union) are: there should be
a motive, lack of representation, lack of trust in the Chain of Command, and bad or declining
conditions of work and pay. Beside the motive there should be a mood, the willingness of the
soldiers to defend their interest and let their superiors know the need an independent organization
to represent their interest. When there is a motive and a mood the next prerequisite needed to
establish a union is the opportunity. The opportunity is there when the government, the chain of
command and the society accept the idea of the soldiers to establish their own independent
representative and enjoy freedom of association. One opportunity can be if the restriction in the
law has been changed to allow the soldiers to unionize. These three prerequisites could be
characterized as the critical success factors.
i. European Organization of Military Association
In Europe most of the military unions are members of the European Organization of Military
Association (Euromil). Euromil was established in 1972 and has 39 national military associations
and trade unions of 25 countries of Europe. “The organization strives to secure and advance the
human rights, fundamental freedoms and socio professional interests of soldiers by monitoring
and advocating at the European level. The Organization makes the unions as members stronger,
because they can also rely on the support of the other members. The European Military unions
can be characterized as follows:
-
they will not strike; a strike by military forces would be inappropriate and inconsistent
with the military mission;
24
-
matters covered by law, military or tactical decisions in battle or wartime and the
accomplishment of the military mission on the acceptance of orders are not of their
concern;
-
the nations of these armies are very unionized themselves.”(Euromil).
j. Summary
The following can be summarized out of the relevant literature.
The fundamental rights of everyone to associate, unionize, collectively bargain and strike are
internationally recognized. In most constitutions the above mentioned rights are anchored and
that these same constitutions leave the possibility for the government to decide about the position
of the armed forces and the police when it comes to these rights. There are also driving forces
which can lead to the need to unionize. These forces are public sector advocacy for an
independent representation for soldiers, the influence of the constitutional rights of everyone, the
pressure of a dominant trade union culture, the decline in military status and organizational
changes in the military.
The military is not seen any longer as a vocation, but as an occupation in which the members
have become more aware of the conditions of employment. Certain factors are responsible for
this change; The change to a volunteer force, recruitment from the broader population, decline of
working and living conditions, the fading gap between military and civilian occupation and the loss of
trust and the absent of government representative institutions (Gannon, 1992:52)
25
3. Interest representation within the army in Suriname
a. Introduction
This research is about the National Army of Suriname and interest representation. So it is
important to have a chapter about the history of the NAS, more specifically the attempt to
establish a military union in 1980 and the different laws and regulations which have to do with
freedom of association and the rights of the soldiers. The different representative organizations
set up by the government will also be reviewed.
b. History of army union in Suriname
The army of Suriname was not well established before being turned over to Suriname by its
former colonizer at independence on November 25, 1975. After 5 years of independence, 16
soldiers overthrew the legal government of Suriname on February 25 1980, after which a military
regime ruled the country for almost a decade. One of the main reasons for this coup was the
refusal of the government to recognize the right of soldiers to form a union, Bomika (Bond
Militair Kader) (Slagveer, 1980:68). On January 30, 1980 soldiers of the Surinaamse Krijgsmacht
(SKM) started collective action against the government and the Chain of Command, because they
refused to recognize their union which was formed in 1979 by Non Commission Officers
(NCO‟S). A few days earlier the leadership of the military union “Bomika” sent a telegram to the
government and asked to recognize their union. The telegram was signed by: B. Sital, Ch.
Mijnals, L.Neede, R. Horb, R. Abrahams, R. Braaf and I. de Ramdhanie. The government and the
Chain of Command tried to hear the leaders of the union separately, to weaken their unity. Not
only NCO‟s were members of the union, but also corporals and soldiers of lower ranks. The
government reaction on the telegram was to ask the union to postpone their action. The action
started when the Chain of Command refused to grant the members of the union permission to
hold an assembly in the Memre Boekoe Barracks. The soldiers were still open for dialogue with
the government. The action of the soldiers changed when the government released three of the
members of the board of their function and ordered them to leave the barracks. The entrances of
the barracks were guarded by armed military police and police. The supporters of the union,
NCO‟s and corporals, broke through the barricades which were setup before the entrances and
went on with their action inside the camp. They decided to stay in the Memre Boekoe Barracks
26
and asked the community for their support. The wives of the soldiers who were protesting formed
the “Committee of 30 January” to support their husbands. Internationally the soldiers also
received support from unions in the Netherlands, from the Federatie van Algemene Christelijke
Organisatie van Militairen and the Hoofdbestuur van de Landelijke Korporaals Vereniging van
Amersfoort, which sent a letter to the government of Suriname asking it to recognize the freedom
of association of the soldiers. The Commander of the SKM, Colonel Y. Elstak, consulted with his
officers what strategy should be followed to break the action of the soldiers. The soldiers were
forced, by heavily armed police and military police to leave the barracks. If it was necessary they
had orders to shoot at the unarmed soldiers. The three leaders of the union had to face the court
martial on the charges of insubordination. The community had great interest in the case and was
present outside the courthouse, which was heavily guarded by police and military police. The
judge advocate demanded a 10 months imprisonment sentence and dismissal from the military
service. The verdict would be on February 26, 1980. The other leaders of the union changed the
action and decided to overthrow the government of Suriname. After the coup the union vanished
and the SKM became The National Army of Suriname. The reasons for establishing a union in
the Suriname Krijgsmacht were the bad conditions of work, the poor allowances of pay and bad
communication with the top of the SKM. The SKM was also not well established before being
turned over to Suriname and the support of the Netherlands Army also disappeared which led to
the absence of the most elementary military necessities (Slagveer, 1980:9-16).
Before the coup, the government of Suriname - under the leadership of Prime Minister Henck
Arron - installed the Commission Abbendanon to screen the „Surinaamse Krijgsmacht‟ (SKM)
and advice the government on what to do. The report of this commission was very negative
towards the government which is the main reason why it was never used or made public. In this
report, the government was advised to do the following:
-
reorientation of the Surinamese defense system by a committee of experts
-
clarity and consistency in defense policy
-
preparing a strategic plan and annual plans with corresponding budgets and
implementation schedules
-
to involve in an early stage the Army in changes with respect to the defense policy
-
to control the restriction of trade union rights for military personnel through a special law
27
-
the creation of consultative structures in the interest of the military
-
hold consultations with the military interest organization about the promotion rules
-
setting up a separate ministry of defense or an adequate administrative apparatus
-
setting up an advisory board on defense issues (Slagveer, 1980:187-188).
c. What is written in the different laws?
According to article 20 of Constitution of the Republic of Suriname: “everyone has the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association, however subject to provisions in the interest of
public order, safety, health and morality”(Constitution of Suriname). The Constitution is the
supreme law of the Republic of Suriname. That means that other laws should be in accordance
with the Constitution. The Constitution of Suriname left the opening for the government in article
20 to decide about the legal position of soldiers regarding the right to associate. The right of the
soldiers to associate has been restricted by law in article 54 of the law on the legal position of the
soldiers. It is prohibited by law for the soldier to participate in a political party as a member of the
board or as spokesmen. This means every soldier is allowed to participate in a political party, but
not as a leading person. The Constitution of the Republic of Suriname also protects the following
rights of everyone: the right to unionize (article 30), the right to collective bargaining (article 21)
and the right to strike (article 33). The right to strike is prohibited for soldiers in article 51 of the
law on the legal position of soldiers. The word strike is not used in this article, but according to
the definition of Mekel; “a strike is a collective organized, cessation or slowdown of work by
employees to force acceptance of their demands by the employer” (Mekel, 1987: 548). Since
article 51 prohibits soldiers to participate in collective action, it means they are prohibited to join
strike actions. The right to unionize and the right to collective bargaining are not restricted by the
lawmaker of Suriname for soldiers. The right to unionize can be defined as “the right to join
together in a specific type of organization for the purpose of improving the working condition as
well as to help in promoting the common interest of the group” (businessdictionary.com). Article
30 of the Constitution of Suriname recognizes the right of every employee to unionize. Article 30
stipulates the following: “Employees are free to set up trade unions to represent their rights and
interests. In exercising trade union rights indiscriminately, the following freedoms are
guaranteed: freedom to join or not join a trade union and the right to participate in trade union
activities.”
28
To unionize is not explicitly forbidden for soldiers of the National Army of Suriname by law;
however activities of a union are forbidden or restricted by law. The soldier needs a written
consent of his commander to participate or organize a demonstration or a meeting. The
explanatory memorandum of the law on the legal right of the soldiers suggests that the need for
these rules and constraints is to ensure the loyalty and political neutrality of these employers to
the public authority (Memorie van Toelichting, 6-10). According to the same explanatory
memorandum, collective action means strikes and other forms of collective action, creating a
working relationship in which performance is hindered or disrupted. According to the explanatory
memorandum it is not meant to constraint the military in exploiting their rights, but it is the way
in which the means of collective action are being used, which can have very negative
consequences for the authority, respect and the trust in the institution to which it belongs (e.g.
organize a brass band or a singing choir and have rehearsals when they are not on duty) and
ultimately to the state authority. This would thus imply that soldiers are legally allowed to
organize, and also legally allowed to have a meeting e.g. in their free time, to discuss working
conditions and how best to convey their grievances in a meeting with e.g. the IG
The right to collective bargaining is not prohibited for soldiers of the National Army of Suriname
by the law on the legal position of the soldier. The right to collective bargaining is defined as “the
right to collectively negotiate as employees with the employer to determine the conditions of
employment” (uslegal n.d.). The right to collectively bargaining can only be used by the soldiers
if there is some form of military representation or a representative body in which the soldiers are
being represented. Article 31 of the Constitution protects the right to collective bargaining of
every employee. It states in the first paragraph: “trade unions are entitled to defend and come up
for the rights and interest of the employees they represent” and paragraph 4 says: “unions have
the right to collective labor agreements.”(Constitution of Suriname). The right to unionize is not
restricted or forbidden by the law on the legal position of the soldiers. Still it is a question why
the soldiers of the NAS don‟t have a union?
3.4 The office of the Inspector-General
Suriname also has an office of the Inspector General (IG) which reports directly to the Minister of
Defense. The objective of the IG is to contribute to the quality improvement of the armed forces
29
through checking, inspecting, monitoring in compliance with legal provisions and rules regarding
the operation of the armed force. Some of the main tasks of the inspector general of the Suriname
Defense Force which are relevant for this research are:
-
To advise the Minister of Defense solicited and unsolicited about issues regarding the
army;
-
To deal with complaints from individual soldiers and civil personnel of defense;
-
To examine bottlenecks and to make recommendations to improve.
The inspector general has an advisory role in the National Army of Suriname. The complaints he
receives from personnel are being channeled through the Minister to the department or official
who has to take care of them. The office is not a union; it is a working arm of the Minister of
Defense. There are no data available at the office of the IG about the amount of grievances and
complaints he received from soldiers and the kind of grievances and problems he get. The
information presented here below is based on the answers given by the IG when he was
interviewed. According to the IG, the office is not in the organizational chart of the MoD despite
the fact that it is a function which exists already for a long time in the NAS. The office is not
staffed and it does not have a track record of what has been done in the last decade. The IG took
over from his predecessor who only had a small office and a driver. Through the
“Operationalisering Bureau IGK” plan he is trying to establish a decent and properly staffed
office. According to the IG the office receives two complaints/grievances on a daily bases. Most
complaints have to do with; bad career opportunities, bad housing and food on detachment, bad
communication with their direct superior, unequal workload, unequal payment in comparison
with the police and lack of personal standard equipment. The IG also complained about the fact
that most soldiers in the “Memre Boekoe” barracks have never heard of the IG institution and
what it does. According to him the number of grievances reported would be higher if his office
was better known amongst all soldiers.
e. Commission of Consultation
Suriname is not different went it comes to the interest representative bodies installed by the
government as a substitute for a trade union. In article 6 of the law on the legal rights of the
soldier, the lawmaker says: “there is an Organized Consultation.” That means it already exists.
30
This institute of the government was meant to deal with the interest of the soldiers. The
commission has been installed but it is not working. The new Minister of Defense is going to
install a new Commission of Consultation on the basis of the new law signed by the current
President, who also was a member of Bomika in 1980. The Commission has as task to advice the
Minister solicited and unsolicited about matters regarding the legal position of soldiers (Article 2,
paragraph 2, Besluit Georganiseerd Overleg Militairen). The Commission consists of:
a. representation of the Minister, consisting of 2 members;
b. representation of the soldiers, consisting of 2 members of each category.
The Commission is headed by an independent chair who is not a member (Article 2, paragraph 3)
and the nomination of the representation of the soldiers will be done by the organization of the
different categories (Article 2, paragraph 5). Also important to know is that the President
appoints, suspends and discharges the chairman, the secretary and members of the commission
because he is the upper commander in chief of the army (Article 2, paragraph 6). This means that
the commission comprises 8 members, a chair and a secretary who are not members of the
commission. Article 5, paragraph 1 states: “The Minister shall lay, before a decision is taken in
matters affecting the general legal position of the soldiers, a decision taken before them for
advice to the commission.” That means that the Minister cannot take any decision regarding the
legal position of the soldiers without the knowledge of the Commission, which can come with
their own advices regarding the subject. In this way the Commission would be able to influence
matters regarding the legal position of the soldiers. Paragraph 3, of article 5 says: “the soldier can
go with his grievances regarding his legal position straight to the commission, prejudice to his
right by law to complain within the administration of the army. This is a very good opportunity
for soldiers to be able to avoid the complaint structure within the administration, which is mostly
influence by the Chain of Command or higher ranked soldiers. The commission takes decisions
on the basis of consensus (art.10) and a unanimous taken advice of the commission is binding for
the government, and can only be waived if the states acts in general interest (art.11). An
arbitration commission can also be appointed, comprising of two representatives of soldiers
appointed by the representative of the soldiers in the commission, two representatives of the
government appointed the President and an independent chair appointed by both parties, if a
decision cannot be taken in matters regarding the legal position of the soldiers. The decision of
31
the commission is binding (art.12). The explanatory memorandum of this law states that the idea
of this law is to make sure that the legal status of the soldiers is properly taken care of by
consultation between the employer and the employee. The reason for this is that the soldiers do
not have the possibility to put pressure to their grievances regarding their legal position, because
their rights are restricted by article 51 to 55 of the law on the legal position of soldiers. It is
important to maintain good motivation to work and guarantee the labor peace amongst the
soldiers, a well functioning and structural consultation between employer and employee, aimed at
consensus, is a must.
32
4. Findings
a. Findings for Suriname
What is the reality in the National Army of Suriname when it comes to interest representation for
the soldiers? It is clear that there is no union in the National Army of Suriname. The issue of a
union in the army is still seen as a taboo, because the idea is that the army does not coincide with
trade unions.
Why do we need a union in the NAS? To redress the following grievances of the soldiers:
-
Poor conditions of work, which may vary from bad housing and food at detachment to
insufficient and inadequate equipment to perform duties;
-
Better allowances of pay, in comparison with other forces which the NAS have to support
on a regular bases, the NAS is being paid just a fraction of overwork pay what these
forces receive;
-
Career opportunity and equal changes to participate in trainings;
-
Bad communication with their direct superior.
One of the biggest constraints of the National Army of Suriname is the acceptance of a union
according to Andre Haakmat in a lecture held for the labor union “Moederbond” in 1979; while
the fight of the Surinamese soldiers was going on for recognition of their union; that a union is
bad for the army and that it will destroy the discipline needed to follow orders. According to
Haakmat the nature of the army does not correspond with the nature of a union and that it would
be better for Suriname not to allow a union in the army. But on the other hand, he said, by not
allowing a union for the armed force we act against our own Constitution. So if we want an army
with a union, the Constitution and the articles about the freedom of associations should be
changed (Haakmat, 1979:22-23).
The findings out of the interviews conducted with the soldiers and officials at the Ministry of
Defense of Suriname do not differ much, despite the differences in rank and employment
conditions. The soldiers interviewed ranged from corporal to lieutenant colonel and have served
the army for at least three years and up to 35 years. It is important to point out that due to the
33
nature of the subject and the taboo sphere in which the idea of a union is still in the NAS, the
questions asked where short and to the point. The reason for this being to prevent people from
getting the idea that researcher was lobbying to establish a union in the NAS.
The representative bodies in the National Army of Suriname are: the Chain of Command, the
office of the Inspector General and the Commission of Consultation. Overall, the interviews
revealed the following facts that the Chain of Command does not represent the interests of the
soldiers. Members of the Chain of Command and other senior officials charged with
policymaking were interviewed. In the Ministry of Defense there is a separation between the
Ministry of Defense and the NAS. This makes it more difficult to represent the interest of the
soldiers. These two bodies are seen as two separate entities: one in charge of administrative tasks
and the other in charge of operational tasks. The newly installed IG is working hard to establish
his office and to staff it adequately. The IG has not been able to represent the interests of the
individual soldier let alone the interest of the collective. The Senior Legal Advisor of the MoD
said that the Commission of Consultation is difficult to staff due to a disagreement between the
civilian top of the MoD and the representation of the soldiers. The former Act to install the
Commission of Consultation was dropped and a new Act has been signed by the Minister.
Because the Commission of Consultation is also not installed, the soldiers are left without any
form of representation. Even when the office of the IG is properly staffed, the need for an army
union will still be there, he said. The senior legal advisor of the Minister said that according to
her it is a form of discrimination against the armed forces that they are not allowed to practice
some of their constitutional rights, while civilian and other forces can. The Commission of
Consultation had been installed by the former Minister of Defense, but it never held a meeting.
The commission was not accepted by the army, especially not by senior officers, because there
were too many civilians in the commission and the commission would only have an advisory
role. The Organized Consultation is mentioned in article 6 of the law on the legal position of the
soldiers, but it never worked. The Minister of Defense is still trying to implement this
Commission of Consult, which must represent the interest of the soldiers.
According to the soldiers interviewed there is also a decline in conditions of work compared with
those a few years ago and this is mostly felt by the lower ranks. Communication between most of
the superior and the subordinates is also very bad. Another subject pointed out by the soldiers is
34
the lack of career prospects for soldiers, especially of the lower ranks. The lack of representation
is being felt at every level of the NAS. Most of the respondents referred to the police force as an
example where a union can definitely help in providing better working conditions and allowances
of pay. Forces like the police force, correctional officers, fire brigade and customs are all being
represented by unions. Comparing these forces with the National Army of Suriname, we see that
their interest representation is strong. Their unions can negotiate with the government over
various topics like the working conditions of its members. These unions, representing these
employees, avail of many means with which they can put pressure on the government for their
grievances to be heard or to accept their demands. The main tool of a trade union is to strike,
which has been used by these unions on a regular basis. Lately it has been used by the
correctional officers to pressure the Minister of Justice to listen to their requests. By constraining
the right of the soldiers to participate in collective action, the soldiers do not have any leverage
when negotiating with the government about improving their working conditions and legal status
issues. Since the Commission for Consultation does not function, the military does not have any
legal means to stand up for its interests. On the other hand, because the notion of collective action
being so vaguely described, any action undertaken by two or more military men in coming up for
their interest could be interpreted as being against the law. The police force is not constrained to
participate in collective action.
The question whether a union is needed in the NAS has been answered positively by the majority.
The IG who was part of the unionization process in 1980, when Bomika was formed, said that if
that union had continued, the NAS would be better off today. The union disappeared after a
while. The government policy regarding interest representation of the soldiers can be found in the
explanatory memorandum of the law on the Commission of Consultation. The policy is to install
a commission which will represent the soldiers. After 31 years no other attempt has been made to
establish another military union. The Constitution protects the freedom of associations of
everyone, but it also leaves it to the government to decide over the legal position of the soldiers
and police. In the law on the legal position of the soldiers, freedom of association is restricted for
every soldier. The soldiers of the NAS are not allowed to participate in collective actions without
permission of their superior. Among the soldiers interviewed, the need to exercise this right is
present, because with their own union their interest will be better taken care off. The right to
35
strike is not seen as an important issue for the soldiers I interviewed and according to them this
right can be restricted.
Summary: The NAS has the motive, lack of trust of in the Chain of Command, declining
condition of working and pay and the absence of a representative institution for soldiers, as
concluded in the interviews. The second prerequisite for establishing a union, the mood, is
definitely present among the soldiers of the NAS. The problem with the mood in the NAS is the
history of a military union, which led to the coup in 1980, is still fresh in the mind of the society.
Every attempt to establish a union in the NAS will be linked with to this historical event. The
third part of the prerequisite, the opportunity, is not present. But when the motive and the mood
are present, and the soldiers can convince the authorities the need of a union, the opportunity will
come and then all three prerequisites will be in place to make the possibility to implement a union
feasible.
36
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
a. Comparative analysis
Comparing the NAS with the two success stories mentioned, the following can be concluded. On
the basis of the arguments of Harries-Jenkins, three critical factors have to be present for the
successful establishment of a union in the army of Suriname. These three critical success factors
are: (i) a motive, (ii) a mood and (iii) an opportunity. In the two success stories the motive was
the absence of a (good) representative structure in the army to represent the interests of the
soldiers. Suriname is no stranger to that, the lack of a structured representation body is also
present in the NAS. There is no trust in the Chain of Command, no office of the IG and no
implementation of the Commission of Consultation. Also the dissatisfaction with the allowances
of pay and conditions of works, which was present in the two success stories, is present in the
NAS. Compared to other forces in Suriname, the NAS is in a very disadvantaged position with
regards to overwork, allowances pay and conditions of work. This constitutes an important reason
for soldiers to ask for a transferred to other forces, in which their interests are better looked after.
As seen in this comparison, the same motive(s) that were present in the two success stories are
present in the NAS. The motive(s) is present, but is there a mood present to set up a union.
Pointing to the history of the NAS, the mood was definitely present in the 1980. Although the
number of soldiers and officials interviewed for this study is small none of them is against the
implementation of a military union, which can take care of the interest of the soldiers better. The
soldiers of the NAS are very cautious when it comes to openly expressing the idea of establishing
a union. Probably this has to do with what happened in 1980 when soldiers wanted to form their
own union. The mood to form a union is present, but it appears that no one dares to be the first
one to express it openly. There can be a motive and a mood, but there must also be an
opportunity. The current President of Suriname and the Minister of Public Works both were
members of the union formed back in 1980. Maybe it is high time now for the NAS to seize this
opportunity for attempting to form a union. Unionization is a process which sometimes can
happen fast without any problem, but sometimes it takes more time and a lot of courage to
achieve the same. If the opportunity is taken, the process of unionization in the NAS can become
a success.
37
On the basis of the research, it can be concluded that there are no real constraint which prevent
the establishment of a union in the NAS. Soldiers are not allowed to strike, but they themselves
do not see this as a problem, does not prohibit the soldiers from joining or forming a trade union.
Article 51 of the law on the legal position of soldiers is not meant to constraint the military in
exploiting their rights but, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, it is the way in which the
means of collective action are used, which can have negative consequences for the authority,
respect and the trust in the institution to which it belongs and ultimately to the state authority.
That means soldiers are allowed to participate in collective action which does not have these
negative consequences e.g. a peaceful meeting after hours of duty not which is one of the mean of
a union to put pressure on the negotiating table. That means a soldier cannot participate in strike
action. To hold an assembly the soldiers need permission of their superior, which can only be
refused on certain grounds. That means there are no constraints which prohibit the soldiers to
establish a union in the NAS. Globally more armies are accepting the freedom of association of
the soldiers, by allowing them to form or join military unions. Of course certain parts of the
freedom of association are still prohibiting for soldiers (the right to strike) and the union can only
negotiate about legal positions matter of its members. Europe has a frontrunner role in the
acceptation of army unions. In the history of the NAS there was only one attempt to establish a
union, Bomika, more than 30 years ago. The government and the Chain of Command tried to stop
this attempt of the soldiers by arresting three of the leaders of the union. They were even brought
before a court martial, but before they could be sentenced a coup was committed by the other
members of the union on the 25th of February 1980. After the coup Bomika vanished. The laws
and regulations are no constraints for an army union, because they do not prohibit a union. The
laws and regulation are the basis of a discipline army which is based on a hierarchy. The army is
an organization where the discipline is needed to be effective and follow orders of your superior.
The laws and regulations are needed for any soldier to know what he might do and not do. The
government policy regarding interest representation in the NAS is to establish a Commission of
Consultation, consisting of representatives of the government and representative of the different
categories of soldiers. The Commission has the specific task to advice the MoD is legal position
matters of the soldiers. At this moment there is no representation in the NAS. The chain of
command does have the trust of the soldiers to represent their interest, the office of the IG is not
38
implemented (in fact it does not even exist in the organizational chart of the MoD) and the
Commission of Consultation is not installed due to problem with the staffing.
A military union can contribute to a higher degree of democracy to the society of Suriname.
Freedom of association, freedom of assembly, trade union freedom and collective bargaining are
some of the indicators by which democracy is measured. By allowing the soldiers the above
mentioned rights, with some restriction i.e. no right to strike, the soldiers also can contribute in
the decision making process of the government, by contributing in decision taken by the
government regarding their legal position. The army is one of the main guardians of democracy.
If such an institution is allowed to enjoy democracy, with the necessary restriction which coincide
with the nature of the army, in would guard the democracy better. By allowing the soldiers to
enjoy these democratic rights, on the bases of the Freedom House Index, the level of democracy
of Suriname will be measured higher. The role of democratic institutions is to safeguard the
society against unlawful handling of the government. Such an institution is a trade union, which
can safeguard the interest of the soldier. If the laws are not the constraints, what can be? The first
attempt which led to the coup may be one of the biggest constraints, who will be the first to
attempt to form a union? The nature in the barracks is that unions are not allowed, and probably,
as the researcher also thought, that it is prohibited by law. Even senior officers, personnel
experience of the researcher, lives with the idea that it forbidden to form and join a union in the
NAS. Also the “mood” to form a union is still indivualistic. Until this can change into a collective
“mood” the NAS will not have a union, a military union.
b. Recommendations
Recommending it can be said that the Suriname government should implement its own policy on
the interest representation for the NAS. The government institutions in the army, meant to
represent the soldiers, should be operationalised and adequately staffed in the right manner, so
that it can answer the needs of the soldiers.
To boost the mood of soldiers to establish a union, the importance of collective bargaining must
be promote by more international contact with other forces and letting the soldier know that their
freedom of association is not prohibited or constraint. If the means of freedom of associations are
used well by the soldiers there are no law on basis of which they can be stopped to feel the
39
benefits. Internationally it is proven that unionization does not influence the discipline in a
negative way, so by allowing a union in the NAS, the discipline will not decline. By allowing the
soldiers to unionize, they can negotiate with the government over their legal position which
would give the government a better idea of what the soldiers want.
The union has specific tasks and bargaining power. The NAS can take the different armies
already unionized as examples for allowing freedom of association in the army. The soldiers must
be informed of the duties of a union and how to operate. The members within the army should be
trained and informed in dealing with and how to use the right of representation by a union.
Democracy is participation by the people and the army is an important part of it, which must get
the opportunity to participate and contribute to a higher degree of democracy.
Future research is recommended for the necessary inputs for a government policy to be
formulated and the necessary conditions to be put in place for a successful implementation of a
responsible military union.
40
Bibliography
-
Apeldoorn, L.J. (1972) Inleiding tot de studie van het Nederlands recht, Zwolle
-
Bartle, R and L.Heinecken (2006) Military Unionism in the Post-Cold War Era: A future
reality. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
-
Bartle, R.(2005) Independent representation in the British army: Has the time finally
arrived? Contributions to Conflict Management, Peace Economics and Development.
Accessed 02 Juli 2011
<http://books.google.com/books?id=orEt2AdmwE0C&pg=PA481&lpg=PA481&dq=bartl
e+independent+representative+in+the+british+army&source=bl&ots=wEwRWsk3MB&si
g=Gxa1Bq3OrTnto0DhXqL7j6oSC14&hl=en&ei=g82yTvfyJYb8ggfN3sCiBA&sa=X&o
i=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bartle%20in
dependent%20representative%20in%20the%20british%20army&f=false >
-
Carre (1990) Geschiedenis van de Miliataire vakbonden. accessed 12 Juli
2011<http://www.nederlandseofficierenvereniging.nl/Carre/carre%202005/Carre%20sep
%202005/ca050931.pdf >
-
Collective Bargaining law and legal definition accessed 9 November 2011
<http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collective-bargaining/>
-
Definitions: Freedom of association law and legal definition, accessed 9 November 2011
<http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/freedom-of-association>
-
European Organization of Military Associations, accessed 05 May 2011
<http://www.euromil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:baff&ca
tid=23:members-in-the-uk&Itemid=33>
-
Gannon, M (1992) ‘The advent of the representative associations in the Irish Defense
Forces
„Master
thesis.
Fort
Leavenworth,
Kansas
Accessed
20
June
2011
<http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA256885&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf >
-
Grondwet van de Republiek Suriname (S.B. 1987 no.116), gelijk zij luidt na de daarin
aangebrachte wijziging bij S.B. 1992 no.38. (The Constitution of
the Republic of
Suriname)
41
-
Haakmat, A(1979) Vakbond en Krijgsmacht, presented at the lecture of “De
Moederbond”, Paramribo, Suriname (August 1979)
-
Heinecken, L (1995) Military Unionism in South Africa: Legality and Potential for
Development. Researcher centre for Military Studies (CEMIS), Military Academy,
Saldanha. Published in African Security Review vol. no 5, 1995
<http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/asr/4No5/Heinecken.html >
-
Heinecken, L. (2009) Discontent within the ranks? : Officers attitudes toward military
employment and representation- A four country comparative study. Accessed 20 June
2011 <http://afs.sagepub.com/content/35/3/477.refs.html>
-
International Labor Organization Convention C87, accessed 04 April 2011 <
http://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm>
-
Mekel, J. (1987) Rondom de Witte stukken, Ambtenare en Grondenrechten: oude wijn in
nieuwe zak, in Ars Aequi 36 no.9
-
Ministerie van Defensie, Taken IGK, accessed 25 october 2011
<http://www.defensie.nl/igk/taken >
-
Besluit Georganiseerd Overleg Militairen, S.B. 2010 no.103
-
Slagveer, J (1980) De Nacht van de Revolutie, staatsgreep in Suriname op 25 februari
1980, Paramaribo: C.Kersten & Co. N.V.
-
The explanatory memorandum of the Law on the legal position of the military
-
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accessed 25 October 2011
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml >
-
University of Minnesota, Human Right Library Freedom of association , accessed 5
November 2011 <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auom.htm >
-
Ward A.1979. The British Army and Civilian Trade Unions: A marriage of the
incompatible? The Political Quarterly;50: 461- 472
-
WET van 17 april 1971, houdende regelen omtrent de politie in Suriname
(Politiehandvest) (G.B. 1971 no. 70). (Police charter )
-
WET van 17 mei 1996, houdende regelen omtrent de rechtspositie van militairen (Wet
rechtspositie militairen) (S.B. 1996 no.28). (The Law on the Legal position of the
Military)
42
-
Wet van 27 mei 1996, houdende regelen met betrekking tot de inrichting,
taakomschrijving en organisatie van het Nationaal Leger. (Wet Nationaal Leger)
(S.B.1996 no.27) (The Law on the National Army)
-
Worldwide Constitutions, accessed 5 November 2011
<http://www.concourt.am/armenian/legal_resources/world_constitutions/constit/consts2l.
htm >
Interviews:
-
Deputy Director of Financial, Material and Logistic Affairs, (captain) Truideman
Letitia,28/11/2011
-
Lieutenant Colonel Mr.Marga Van Lingen, Senior Judicial advisor of the Ministry of
Defence, 10/08/2011
-
Lieutenant Colonel Jardim, Inspector-General of Armed Forces of the National Army of
Suriname, 9/11/2011
-
Head of Internal Audit Unit, Major Barron Albert, 28/11/11
-
Class of 10 Cadets (aspirant officers in training), 23/11/11
-
Corporal Nagessar M, 24/11/11
-
Corporal Hupsel S, 24/11/11
-
Corporal Nortan P, 24/11/11
43
Questions for the Soldiers of the lower ranks
General
1. How long have you been employed by the Ministry of Defense?
2. What are your rank and function and age?
Government institutes
3. Are you familiar with the Chain of Command, The Office of the Inspector General and
the Commission of Consultation
4. Have you ever gone to one of the above mentioned institute with a problem?
5. If yes, what was the result?
Interest representation
6. Do you feel that your interests are being represented well as employer of the Ministry of
Defense?
7. IF yes, why? If No, why?
8. Is there a need for some other form of representation?
9. Are you satisfied with pay and working conditions of the Ministry of Defense?
10. Are you familiar with labor unions?
11. Is there a place for the military union in the NAS?
12. Do you think it would be bad for the discipline and hierarchy structure of the army?
13. What do you think about the right to strike; doe the army also need that right?
44
Questions for the Senior and Junior Officers
General
1. How long have you been employed by the Ministry of Defense?
2. What are your rank, function and age?
Government institutes
3. Are you familiar with the Chain of Command, The Office of the Inspector General and
the Commission of Consultation?
4. What is the place of the Office of the Inspector General of Armed Force at the Ministry of
Defense?
5. Have you ever gone to one of the above mentioned institute with a problem?
6. If yes, what was the result?
7. Do you have data regarding the frequency of soldiers visiting the IG with their problems
and grievances? If yes how many of these cases were solved?
Interest representation
8. Freedom of association is internationally recognized by different treaties and nationally by
the Constitution of Suriname. What do you thing about the restriction of these rights for
soldiers?
9. Is the restriction against the Treaties and Constitution of Suriname?
10. Internationally, especially in Europe, army unions are common. give us your thought
about that
11. Do you feel that your interests are being represented well as employer of the Ministry of
Defense?
12. IF yes, why? If No, why?
13. Is there a need for some other form of representation?
14. Are you satisfied with pay and working conditions of the Ministry of Defense?
15. Are you familiar with labor unions?
16. Is there a place for the military union in the MoD?
17. Do you think it would be bad for the discipline and hierarchy structure of the army?
45
18. What do you think about the right to strike; does the army also need that right?
19. What is the government policy regarding these issue?
46
Rights / Institutions
Definition
USA
Britain
The right to associate/ the
freedom of association
The right to join others for a legal
cause without interference. it is an
individual right to join with others
individuals and collectively
express, promote, pursue and
defend common interest
(uslegal.com)
The right to join together in a
specific type of organization for the
purpose of improving the working
condition as well as to help in
promoting the common interest of
the group (businessdictionary.com)
The right to collectively negotiate
as employees with the employer to
determined the conditions of
employment (uslegal.com)
The right to collective, organized,
cessation or slowdown of work by
employees to force acceptance of
their demands by the employer
(businessdictionary.com)
Has different task ranging from the
inspection of armed forces to the
improvement of living and working
conditions as well as the
investigation of misconduct
officials.
(defensie.nl)/(usmilitary.about.com)
Has as task to negotiate about the
legal status of the soldiers and
officials ( mpbundels.mindef.nl)
Not forbidden by the constitution.
They are allowed to join both
proff.ass. and trade unions if they
stick to the rules of not being
involved in any political activity
Not forbidden by the constitution.
Mil unions are illegal. but the
BAFF was established in 2006 en
they join Euromil in 2008
Because the constitution do not
forbid military unions
(Bartle,2006: 214)
Also restricted for soldiers, but the
constitution does forbid it.
Not forbidden by the constitution,
but military are forbidden by law
to unionize. In 2006 the British
Armed Forces Federation was
form. it is a federation outside the
structure of the Army
Not forbidden by the constitution,
but the chain of command is seen
as the representative of the army
Right to strike is forbidden for
soldiers
Right to strike is forbidden for
soldiers
Yes, with the specific task to
investigate misconduct by officer
from the rank of colonel and
lower
Yes, the IG office investigates
allegations of misconduct by
soldiers (about.com)
The right to unionize
The right to collective bargaining
The right to strike
Office of the Inspector-General
Commission of consultation
The chain of command is seen as
the repress. of the army. There is
also a review board.
47
Rights/ Instutions
Italy
France
Canada
The right to associate/
the freedom of
association
Soldiers are barred from
either joining or forming a
professional association
Restricted, the soldiers are not
allowed to join professional
associations.
(bartle,2006:214)
Not forbidden by the constitution. but soldiers were not
allowed to associate A conviction has given the
Canadian forces the right to associate freely in
independent organizations, but no one has tried to star
such a organization yet.
(Bartle,2006:214)
The right to unionize
They are also barred from
forming or joining a trade
union. but
Restricted, constraints the
right of active military
personnel for setting
up/joining unions (Bartle,
2006:214)
The right to collective
bargaining
Also barred
Also restricted
Right to strike is forbidden for soldiers
The right to strike
Soldiers are not allowed to
strike
Prohibited for soldiers, a new
statute reinforced the status
quo of the restrictions
Yes, to increase openness and transparency in the
Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence
and to ensure the fair treatment of concerns raised by
Canadian Forces members, Departmental employees and
their families. National Denfence and Canadian Forces
ombudsman. (gc.ca)
Office of the InspectorGeneral
Yes
Yes
Chain of commandis seen as the institute representing
the army
Commission of
consultation
An institutionalized system
of representation. Based
around a representative
body elected by members of
the armed forces. It has an
advisory role
The chain of command is
seen as the representative
body for the army (Bartle,
2006: 213)
48
Rights/ Instutions
The Netherlands
Denmark
Germany
The right to associate/ the freedom
of association
Has the longest history of some
form of military representation
which started in the nineteenth
century
Here soldiers are equal to civil
servants. they have the right to
associate
Yes, it is allowed
The soldiers are seen as “civilian
in uniform” and have the same
rights as the civilian counterparts
The right to unionize
Yes, soldiers are allowed to
unionize. There are specific rules
and regulations which the union
should comply toC0020
Unionization started in 1922,
soldiers are automatically member
of the representative body
(gannon,1992)
Yes, the union is known as the
Bundeswehr Verband.
The right to collective bargaining
The unions are the negotiating
partner of the government
Yes, because the soldiers have the
same rights as the civil servants.
Yes, the percentage of
membership is very high
The right to strike
Right to strike is forbidden for
soldiers
The right to strike is a exception to
the equality, the soldiers are not
allowed to strike
No, soldiers are not allowed.
Office of the Inspector-General
Yes, committed in improving the
living and working conditions of
armed forces personnel
(defensie.nl)
Yes, comprising the military
unions, the ministry of defence
and the government
Yes
Yes
Commission of consultation
Yes
49
Ireland
Yes is allowed since 16 may 1991
Rights/ instutions
Norway
Australia
The right to associate/ the freedom
of association
Yes , not forbidden by the
constitution
Also not forbidden by the
constitution
The right to unionize
Ye s, also one of the oldest, the
Befalets Felles was established in
1835 (Gannon,1992)
Unionization came after long legal
battle in court of justice, although
it is not forbidden by the
constitution (Bartle,2006
:)
Yes. By signing the Defense
Forces Regulation S6 on 16 may
1991, interest
representation was allowed into
the army.
The right to collective bargaining
Yes, allowed by the constitution
Also restricted by the army
Yes, Defense Forces Regulations
S6
The right to strike
Forbidden
No, is forbidden
No, right to strike for soldiers
Office of the Inspector-General
Yes
Established to provide a means of
review and audit of military justice
system independent of the
ordinary chain of command
(defence.gov.au)
The inspector general is advisor to
the Minister of defence , agent of
(ex) soldiers and defense
personnel. Ombudsman for the
defence forces
(defensie.nl)
Commission of consultation
50
Belgium
Yes, unique system of
unionization which is based on a
new corporatist approach to
employment relations
Yes, one union for each sector of
employment. The first union was
established in 1961
Rights/ instutions
Sweden
The right to associate/ the freedom
of association
Yes, the civilians and the soldiers
have equal rights
The right to unionize
Yes the are free to unionise
The right to collective bargaining
Also have the right to collective
bargaining
Of course allowed as part of a
union activity
The right to strike
Soldiers are not allowed to strike
Office of the Inspector-General
Yes, soldiers are equal to the
civilian Government employee
Yes
Commission of consultation
Yes
Mechanism for pay, allowances,
conditions of services and
promotions (Gannon,1992)
Yes
Suriname
Yes in the constitution art. 20 but
is being constraints by art. 53 of
the law on the legal position of
soldiers
Yes, not explicitly forbidden. there
was only one attempt to set up a
union (bomika) to many soldiers
the army does not go along with a
union
Also a constitutional right but
restricted by the law on the legal
pos. of soldiers art.51
Yes, but also restricted
Yes, the current inspector is trying
to establish a qualified and good
staffed office
Yes , but due to problem with the
staffing not implemented
51
Verdragen/wetten
Universal human rights
declaration
Convention on civil and
political rights
ILO
Art.2 everyone is entitle to the rights of freedom of association…
Art.20 freedom of peaceful assembly and association and no one mat be compelled ro an association
Art.21 the right of peaceful assembly
Art.22 freedom of association
C98 right to organize and collective bargaining,1949
Art.1 protection against acts of anti-union.
Art. 5 exception to the law apply to armed forces and the police
C87 Art.2 the right to join
Art. 9 the member state can make an exception when it comes to the army and police
Constitution of Suriname
Art.8 par.2 no discrimination on the basis of birth…..
Art.20 right to peaceful association and assembly according to the law
Art.21 right to peaceful demonstration
Art.30 the right to set up unions
Art.31 the right of the unions
Art.33 right to strike
Art.6 organized consultation
Art.51 the military should refrain from participating in collective action
Art.52 participating in demonstration
Art.53 participating in assembly
Art.54 participating in associations
Art. 6 law on the legal position of soldiers (organized consultation)
The govt. has decided to established an Commission of consultation (SB 2010 no 103)
Not implemented yet, due to disagreement between the top of Ministry of defense and the top of the National Army
Law on the legal position of
soldiers
Commission of consultation
Inspector-general
New inspector-general has been installed, who is trying to implement a good staffed office with qualified
personnel. The inspector-general is a advisor of the Minister of defense and a agent for (ex) defense personnel.
52
53