The Military and Voting

[Muadib]

Here is a tricky question. What is your opinion on soldiers voting and having a say in politics? Simply put, a soldier has a sworn duty to the office of the Crown/congress/govt of the nation s/he works for. By taking a say in that government they become biased for or against a given cause they are sent to go deal with, which leads to much internal struggle and morale issues. On the other side there are some soldiers who choose to be apolitical while in uniform (like myself). I may not like decisions etc. but I am here to serve the government in power regardless of whom they may be so long as they still hold the blessing of the sovereign (to whom my oath is given). What I would like to know is who thinks soldiers should be actively involved in politics? If so should they be able to express their opinions in uniform? If not, why? (On a note my military is allowed to vote etc, except we may not be openly registered members of a political party, nor may we mention our rank or associate ourselves with the military (even when retired) while making political statements, running for election, or supporting a candidate.) Go.

[Alex]

I don't think having an inherent bias means you won't do your duty. I think the military's only concern is to correct those who don't perform their duties as instructed BECAUSE of that bias (e.g., doesn't report for assignment because he doesn't agree with the war in which he's been sent to fight). If you can put your own principles aside and allow yourself to be a tool of the military, even IF you have strong political opinions, more power to you.

Besides, that SHOULD be the one true, legal way a soldier can protest some of the orders he's been given - vote for someone who is less likely to give you those orders.

[Valiyn]

Soldier's are citizens of the country they serve and should be allowed a say as a citizen of that country regardless of any political views they hold.

If someone is eager to send you to die for their cause, then you should be able to tell them to get out of office if you disagree. You might still need to fight anyway, but the next politician in office will think more carefully about the reasons behind the war if the majority of the nation's warriors will vote against him/her.

[Muadib]

Ok Im not against soldiers voting...I was asking more about the openly supporting something/someone while being in uniform/using their military status to sell a point





Muadib added to this post, 0 minutes and 37 seconds later...

That can be very dangerous if you think about it..."the army is for this man" etc.

[RBM]

Depends on how literal you mean to sell a point

There has been threads here and I've seen discussions at other sites regarding the fundamental Christian individuals in uniform - and in other places of power such as the US Congress.

Is this the sort of 'selling a point' you mean ?

[Muadib]

More along the lines of should people in uniform say go to party conventions in uniform (it is acceptable to wear said uniform to a similar level nonpartisian function)

[daydreamer]

for the united states, military personnel shouldn't be discriminated against. everyone in our democracy has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression. political activity may be the only expression a soldier has to voice his/her opinion on the duty they perform, if they are otherwise loyal and true to the uniform and their oath.

any individual can be guilty of a conflict of interest, of harboring a special interest, or of using their position and career to unfair influence. being in the military doesnt preclude this, nor should it.

personally when i see any individual military personnel taking a part in politics i'm comforted. i wouldn't be saying the same though if the military itself had it's own party, and say, showed up with a united front in force. but that is different. i wouldn't want any special interest group or party to attempt intimidation by force for political or other gain.

[Muadib]

The contract signed by service personnel, in Canada, the US and elsewhere, wavies all of your rights to free speech, etc. We are not citizens per se we are agents of the state.

[Warrior]

I don't have a problem in principle with anyone in the military taking part in the political process. There are practical constraints, like you can't just decide you are leaving the front line to go to the party convention, but there's nothing wrong with someone in the military wearing their uniform to a politcal gathering.

[daydreamer]

The contract signed by service personnel, in Canada, the US and elsewhere, wavies all of your rights to free speech, etc. We are not citizens per se we are agents of the state.

interesting. obviously i didn't know that, or i forgot. i don't particularly agree with the spirit of that idea, but i can imagine why it came about. i'm for what i like to call a more enlightened approach lol but that is not always feasible.

is waiving the right to free speech the same as denying it? i would have to say in practice, it couldn't be. for one thing it's impractical to enforce. but i can see that according to the contract, the military could request that an individual refrain from a free-speech activity... it seems it is up to the military (for better or worse) to use that power wisely.

inherent in that system is the problem of, the clash between or among military individuals with differing views. the one with more power may be able to stifle the expressions of the ones with less power. as is the case with the guarantee of our freedoms, it is not a perfect system. but it would theoretically allow for recourse (i'm not privy to the actual mechanisms) - if it can be shown that a powerful military figure squashed the expressions of another in order to promote their own, which should also be equally disallowed.

[Muadib]

The reason we have limited free speech is due to what is now called the "strategic corporal" concept. Say a news person goes up to a random corporal (a low rank who is not informed on the ins and outs and whys of what is going on) and said corporal says something that either gives away a plan or causes the people back home to loose faith in the conflict. Events like that are a problem for the military. As to your last point, I dont think I know of anyone who uses this to put down other opinions and promote their own, but it would be possible.





Muadib added to this post, 0 minutes and 43 seconds later...

If i did vote I would vote for the person who increased my budget by the way

[reb]

lol! the self interest vote :)

personally, i was under the hatch act as a civilian. i saw nothing wrong with that, as political affiliation could have been (and probably was anyway) used against me professionally. i see the same thing for soldiers. i think every member of the armed service should vote, but to involve oneself in a public role is dangerous. one's superior officer might be vengeful..the evaluations for our army folks are 'do or die' things. they control promotions heavily. being a 'political' soldier and a 'commited one' are dangerous when combined, i think.

[Elfrun]

While in uniform a soldier is not representing themselves and therefore should not attend political rallies and the likes, as an individual though they should have the same say as anyone else. I don't believe someone's duty to their armed forces would bias their political beliefs.

[Shifter]

Soldiers are entitled to vote as citizens, but not to use the power of the military (perceived or otherwise) for their own political ends. That's how you end up with a military dictatorship (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[eri]

Soldiers are entitled to vote as citizens, but not to use the power of the military (perceived or otherwise) for their own political ends. That's how you end up with a military dictatorship (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

This is really the key issue. There is no reason a soldier should not be able to vote, but the issue is when the military influences politics as the military, or when a politician is a able to take or hold onto power, not because of the normal electoral process, but because he is in a position to control the military (ie coup attempts). The problem is when the military holds a personal loyalty to one person (or a small group) rather than to their country, and there are lots of modern-day examples of this.

[blueback]

We (the US military) can't do a lot of things in uniform. We're not even supposed to stop at the grocery store for a gallon of milk on our way home. There's flexibility, but it is discouraged. We don't even have to be in uniform for people to label us as representing the entire military. A good example is an airman who ended up on To Catch a Predator a while ago. The narrator mentioned his military affiliation at least a half dozen times in as many minutes, despite the fact that (maybe because?) the guy was in civilian clothes.

Part of "being held to a higher standard" is service before self. We are expected to put our own desires as an independent person aside so that we can better help the team (nation). When we are in uniform anything we do is representative of the uniform, not of us as an individual. Even what we do when we're out of uniform, on leave, and vacationing in another country will reflect on the US military if anyone finds out we're a service member.

It's not fair, but it is a fact.

[Ytterbium]

A soldier, policeman or baker doesn't matter. Their profession isn't about to stand somewhere and have opinions of things. Sure they may vent their opinions if asked as long it actually doesn't hinder their work. It's more a matter of common sense. The profession is irrelevant.
Now I'm not really in the same situation. Our military don't invade countries for various reasons. But the peace-keeping missions sometimes brings up problems etc. That's good because if there's a problem it needs to be corrected. It's good for them and for the public to know how things evolve.
We don't have that 'buy milk problem' here. Perhaps that the military is a more integral part of our lives here. When I was travelling home for the week-ends there was always some other person asking questions and they talked about how it was when they served etc. When I served we discussed politics etc between eachothers aswell. Our group was out in the middle of nowhere in a tent at the night of the national elections. Our captain told us the results and what he thought about it. I don't see anything wrong with it. We completed our tasks anyway together even though our opinions spanned all over the political spectrum. That what matters in the end. If one works for the state/public I somehow think the public should know aswell. Anything else would be oppresive and against freedom of speech/press.

[Muadib]

Another interesting note: due to the hold overs of etiquette from the 18th century in our Messes (Officers watering hole) we may not discuss Politics, Religion, Women, or Business (although work may be discussed in a relaxing manner). Completely different ethic from our Swedish friend here. My understanding of Swedish history does say that the military is more integral to your life Ytterbium than it is to the average Canadian. I also do not know how it works for you guys...but as an Officer especially...anything I say in uniform/or acting as my position is as if it was said by HM Queen Elizabeth II herself...so its kind of an issue. Would never want to disrespect the sovereign by accident

[Ytterbium]

Another interesting note: due to the hold overs of etiquette from the 18th century in our Messes (Officers watering hole) we may not discuss Politics, Religion, Women, or Business (although work may be discussed in a relaxing manner).Ok.I personally think it's better to discuss such things. To really get to know eachother, strength and weaknesses. To lay all the cards on the table. I imagine that there would be risk of possible grudges and nose punching otherwise. Everyone always have the possible to disagree. "I find your view on women, quite old-fashioned and offensive" whatever it may be. It remove the possible group thinking and strange ideals rising. Because those things doesn't matter it's how the group perform and to bring out the best of everyone. Perhaps not everyone is comfortable in trying to adapt to a conformity.

Completely different ethic from our Swedish friend here. My understanding of Swedish history does say that the military is more integral to your life Ytterbium than it is to the average Canadian.I thought it was so in every country until I read it in this thread. However I was born in the eigthies and with the cold war and everything. I heard fighter jets once a month, helicopters once a week and so forth. Every male and my father in particular told how it was for him to serve in the army. It was just something natural birth, schooling, national service, et violà grown-up.

I also do not know how it works for you guys...but as an Officer especially...anything I say in uniform/or acting as my position is as if it was said by HM Queen Elizabeth II herself...so its kind of an issue. Would never want to disrespect the sovereign by accidentYes but it's always so even in the civilian world. You don't want your boss getting angry at you. If a uniformed worker say "we're under manned, too few for the job" it don't think it matters of it's soldier, firefighter or a nurse. It's just a fact and something the public needs to know. Although some things can be left out "if you place a bomb here you kill us all" or such things, common sense.
Another soldier told me that he had a chance to eat dinner with a general (the king himself actually). He told me that he was ashamed that he called the king 'thou' and not 'his majesty'. But no one even cares about that or even bother noticing it. The only one bothering about it was the private who told me this.

[Mader]

In the US we swear to uphold the Constitution, not the current government.

My experience with soldiers (family ) is that they have no problem voting their convictions even if they disagree with the current administration. They do not feel threatened by voting, but they also play by the rules (don't ask, don't tell about voting).

Most email questions I ask are answered truthfully, even potentially problematic questions (hey, what do the actual Army folks think about don't ask, don't tell?). Of course I don't ask 'who are we bombing today' or ' do you know where Osama bin Liden is, and is Elvis there too.' No, I don't ask them if they like their next in line, or if they agree with the President, but in person none of them have criticized their superior officers. Mostly frustrated with bureaucracy.

I have never thought to ask what they discuss amonst themselves, but I have been around Army bases enough to know that most are smart enough to know where to draw the line on expressing personal opinion - as we all should. Politics is often best left at home.

I am very confident that the Army is not going to be taking over the country anytime soon, no matter what the folks in Washington try to do

[jesse]

It is odd to deny someone the right to vote in an election if they are military personnel. I'd say the bigger problem would indeed arise from military personnel who wear their political affiliation on their sleeves and flaunt it every chance they get. The military environment is not one for civilian politics, definitely not at the mid-to-low enlisted ranks.

Exercising democratic rights while in uniform is a very tricky subject indeed because as a soldier, you are largely at the mercy of your superiors with a very limited set of rights such as refusing to carry out orders if they are illegal or highly questionnable. My short answer to the tough topic is vote if you wish to but shut up about it in public.

[Muadib]

Yes but it's always so even in the civilian world. You don't want your boss getting angry at you. If a uniformed worker say "we're under manned, too few for the job" it don't think it matters of it's soldier, firefighter or a nurse. It's just a fact and something the public needs to know. Although some things can be left out "if you place a bomb here you kill us all" or such things, common sense.
Another soldier told me that he had a chance to eat dinner with a general (the king himself actually). He told me that he was ashamed that he called the king 'thou' and not 'his majesty'. But no one even cares about that or even bother noticing it. The only one bothering about it was the private who told me this.

Yeah see if I failed to call the Queen Your Majesty and she didnt pardon me on the spot...I would more than likely be a social leper for a while...not to mention reprimanded.





Muadib added to this post, 1 minutes and 19 seconds later...

That is essentially our policy Jesse





Muadib added to this post, 2 minutes and 54 seconds later...

The last time canada faced a domestic military crisis we almost went to war with the native population...its not really a regular thing around here. Our military bases are near our population centers but far enough away that they are unnoticed. Hell...we barely even parade in front of civilians any more.

[Ytterbium]

Yeah see if I failed to call the Queen Your Majesty and she didnt pardon me on the spot...I would more than likely be a social leper for a while...not to mention reprimanded.I guess that's some 'Anglo-Saxon' manners. An unwritten law how to do, say and react in given situations. Very SJ, we seem to have a more go by your guts mentality, in comparison.

The last time canada faced a domestic military crisis we almost went to war with the native population...its not really a regular thing around here. Our military bases are near our population centers but far enough away that they are unnoticed. Hell...we barely even parade in front of civilians any more.Here the bases and garrisons are near the population, sometimes within a town. Parading is however quite unusual here. The only doing such on a daily basis are the royal guards.
It seems likely however in the future that the military is going to lose this due to the current political climate. With personal economic freedom etc. and that cold war isn't that cold anymore. Conscription abolished to form a professional army instead. Thus losing the touch with the common man. Perhaps the garrisons move aways aswell.

[Muadib]

Actually the bit about respect for positions etc. is actually written in the Commonwealth code of service etiquette incorporated in the Queens Regulations and Orders. As to your military...it is sad to loose touch with the people...close to one of our biggest training bases there were recent incidences of police brutality against military personnel simply because the police dont like us. Very silly really. We like our parades int he British system...have lots of em. Although I must admit I am anti conscription because it is really hard to motivate people who dont want to be in the military to work half as hard as people who volunteered. (Ive tried with some volunteers who didnt know what they were getting into) At least you guys have the honor of saying you have the oldest Western Military Academy in the world, and a proud history to remember of innovation, or creative stagnation in the event of the whole swords and muskets thing.

[Ytterbium]

Actually the bit about respect for positions etc. is actually written in the Commonwealth code of service etiquette incorporated in the Queens Regulations and Orders.I don't know exactly what the regulations are. There're many regard many differnent things handling certain type of materials, vehicles etc. One thing in particular is that you don't wear headwear indoors. May seem silly. However shoes were worn indoors even though in the civilian world you remove them by the door.

As to your military...it is sad to loose touch with the people...close to one of our biggest training bases there were recent incidences of police brutality against military personnel simply because the police dont like us. Very silly really. We like our parades int he British system...have lots of em.The police here don't interfere with military business. The Army has it's reasons and the police usually don't question them. Police and the military sometimes co-operates in search and rescue etc.

Although I must admit I am anti conscription because it is really hard to motivate people who dont want to be in the military to work half as hard as people who volunteered. (Ive tried with some volunteers who didnt know what they were getting into) At least you guys have the honor of saying you have the oldest Western Military Academy in the world, and a proud history to remember of innovation, or creative stagnation in the event of the whole swords and muskets thing.Volontarily or not. If you have a huge captain shouting in your face, you will do as he says. I know, believe me. ;D
I think it's good for everyone, me included. Will I didn't like that much but in the end I learned alot and got some merits which are useful in the civilian world.
On the subject, some British humour (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Hamburglar]

In the US we swear to uphold the Constitution, not the current government.


That is the most hilariously contradictory statement I have ever read.

I think what you meant was we swear to protect and defend the constitution and the government which it authorizes, but not necessarily the elected officials who hold those offices (which even still is debatable, because once the election is over you are obliged support the laws and execution thereof).

-e.g. I support gay marriage, but i cannot illegally marry gay people in the State of CA due to prop 8 passing in the last election. While I do not morally support it, I have to legally speaking.