“A soldier without any political or ideological training is a potential criminal”, Thomas Sankara.

Analyze this statement.

The military is officially neutral and apolitical. However, unofficially it is of popular belief that
military members and veterans alike have socially conservative ideology instilled in them
through training. Being in the military, one is bound to adhere to an ideological code of conduct
which governs the relationship between the subjects, the soldier and the discharge of his
mandate. This writer to a greater extent asserts to the notion that a soldier without any political
and or ideological training, one is prone to abuse power and oppress the rights of the minority
population and a potential criminal. It is the aim of this writing to expose the validity of political
or ideological orientation to a soldier in relation to him being a potential criminal if not
undergone such training.

Ideology is defined by how people think of themselves and society (Lane 1962). In addition
McClosky (1964) defines ideology to encompass the inculcation of ideas about who should rule,
moral codes and fundamental personal values as well as attitudes toward equality, freedom and
democracy. However political or ideological training refers to the orientation process and
inculcation of moral values, codes of conduct and the required discipline expected of a soldier.

While some theorists may argue that all ideology is, by its nature political there is also a
consensually defined more restricted use of the word political especially in democracies. This is
refers to processes and institutions turning on the quest to control the state machinery or other
organizations (Adler, 1987). However in most countries and in the military, this means an
orientation to political parties as these are the organizations that have arisen to pursue such a
quest and the knowledge of importance of national heritage.

Hacket (1970) opines that, a bad person cannot be a good soldier, or sailor or airman. In addition,
Sparks (2015) agrees with this idea and refers to ideological training as the functional line in
achieving military discipline. It is also their argument that the demands placed on the character
and behavior of military members flow directly from the military function itself. For example,
military units cannot function well especially in combat environments if the individuals are not
scrupulously honest with each other and the mission at hand. Also, a soldier will not be able to
do his job if he is not to a certain degree, selfless and dedicated through ideological orientation.
Failure to uphold with the required discipline associated with the military as postulated by
(Ficarrotta, 1997) that if a soldier is not ideologically oriented he would not be willing to put up
with the ordinary hardships of military life, much less to be willing to risk their lives. An
example is the deployment of soldiers in DRC where they were well aware that the war was in
process, hence with ideology, they are able to obey the orders and perform the task without
compromise.

In the interest of military discipline, it is evident that ideological training provides knowledge
about the world indirectly (Martin, 2015). Thus ideological training is a generalization of social
relations which is the ideal form of the actual relations seen from the perspective of one position
in the set of relations but universalized, idealized and abstracted. Also, as ideology is defined as
a verbal image of the good society and of the chief means of constructing such a society (Martin,
2015). However, in the military the inculcation of abstract and concrete values and attitudes is
widespread and makes one prone to discipline and respect for the minority.

A political warrior, soldier or statesman would see the role of the military in the formulation of
national security policy as a priority not as an alternative where the importance of political
orientation to the soldiers controls way ward behavior of the military (Jordan et al 2009). This
same philosophy could be applied to police officers, public educators, judiciaries or un-elected
civil servants to equip them with ideological conscience that guarantee the safety of state
treasures that are entrusted to civil servants. However, the military is unequivocally held
responsible and it holds larger implications on the global scale had the knowledge and values not
instilled through political or ideological training which the soldier could have chosen to neglect
his mandated roles.

Every soldier, airman, sailor, and marine takes the oath that binds him or her to support and
defend the constitution’s basis without a personal agenda (Sparks, 2015). Hence, in the military,
for a soldier to act on personal political beliefs while serving the country would result in disorder
and disarray. In addition, a soldier acting on his personal political beliefs would interfere with
obligated duty and would not be in the best interest of the nation. It is however important that for
avoidance of negative mentality, political and ideological orientation is essential to the soldier.

In the general definition of civil-military relations by Hooker (2011), it was defined as the
relationship between the armed forces of the state and the larger society they serve, how they
communicate, how they interact and how the interface between them is ordered and regulated.
This concurs with Bennet, (2010) who eluded that the relationship between the military, its
interface with the public, centers on knowledge and traits expected from the military instilled
through ideology. For example, the role of the military as a disciplined force is to safeguard the
nation and its resources. The theft of Cyclone Idai aid by the military in 2021 is a deviation of
the service assigned and expected of the military which through ideological training will instill
the sense of Ubuntu and controls their behavior.

Freeden (2013) posited that, ideologies are sets of specific thought practices whose content and
morphology differ from one ideological family to another. It is evident for a soldier in fact to
think about politics the ways in which they intentionally practice the art of political thinking and
unintentionally express the social patterns which that kind of thinking has developed.
Additionally, ideology plays a pivotal role for armed groups for example by affecting their group
behavior, the level and form of violence they deploy and their recruitment patterns. Therefore the
ideological orientation moulds the soldier to protect his national endowment and treasures which
without it, through his exposure to power and authority, may abuse his authority. This is evident
in the Zimbabwean context where soldiers are not supposed to revolt to authority even though
the conditions of living are squalid.

As ideology is expressed consciously or unconsciously in the everyday practices of individuals

and groups, (Fuist, 2014), they can guide practices of soldiers implicitly at least at some point in
history. This is relevant for a soldier to undergo ideological training to avoid criminal thoughts
that are sub conscious which can be rejuvenated through exposure to weaponry and power. This
concurs with the assertion of Sartori, (1969) that ideologies as thought practices are directed at
political behavior or action-oriented in the sense that they explicitly prescribe what to do in what
situation. In addition, ideologies are normative in the military for they aim at building,
maintaining or restoring a particular political or social order and they contain a specific vision of
how the world should look like (Gutiérrez-Sanín and Wood 2014). Therefore, one who could
have not undergone such training lacks the requisite intrinsic order which govern his interactions
with the duty and the masses.

In line with military guidance against rebellion and criminality, ideological or political
orientation encompass political ideologies like Conservatism or Marxism, religious ideologies
like Jihadism and broader ideological structures like neo-liberalism (Steger, 2013 ). In essence,
ideological orientation in the military sets a moral framework to assess military behavior and
judge their actions right or wrong and instills a sense of ability to take instructions without
hesitation. This is the case in the obedience to orders by the military personnel whenever they are
assigned to carry out a task and they associate themselves with the ideology of that mission like
the jihadist, they pursue the assigned mission.

Ideological education is the most obvious institutional practice most armed groups enact to
socialize their members into group ideology (Van Dijk, 2005). In addition, Green (2017) averred
that in some cases, ideological education explains specific social or political purposes of a
particular conflict and connects conflict purposes to specific behavioral norms This therefore
reduces disobedience to orders and at times that which is against the soldier’s will. An example
is the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces which some soldiers condemned the move while
also the Ukrainian soldiers who were on the war front, having seen the other soldiers being
overpowered by Russian soldiers could not give up due to political and ideological orientation.

In tracing the importance of ideological training to soldiers, Green (2017) alludes that it plays a
pivotal role in understanding armed groups’ motive towards the level of violence they deploy
their institutional structure and socialization with the non military citizens. Regarding violent
behavior, ideological training can act as a restraining factor for committing sexual violence
against civilians (Wood 2009). This is the case in the declaration of the law of armed conflict for
the discouragement of use of rape as a weapon of war.
There is evidence that ideological training to soldier’s influences whether violence committed
against civilians is discriminate or indiscriminate (Thaler 2012). Moreover, ideological training
can be a means for armed groups to maintain group cohesion, to uphold the combatants’ morale
and to guarantee combatants’ obedience vis-à-vis orders and compliance with its norms Wood
(2009). In addition, Green (2017) agrees that socializing combatants into a group’s norms and
ideology takes place via different mechanisms which themselves are in turn shaped by ideology.

Cohen (2019) posits that, the degree to which disciplinary practices are enforced depends on the
administrative strength of the ideological training of the armed forces. For example, an armed
group’s stance on sexual violence among its members and non-members helps to illustrate the
linkages between ideological training, masculinity and disciplinary practices. It is also in the
context of ideological training that in the military sexual violence is prohibited and prosecuted.

It is also the assertion of Wood (2009) that the inculcation of ideology on in-group and out-
group members governs the military on whether rape can be deployed as a weapon of war or is it
legalized in a war. Hence political and ideological orientation on soldiers reduces the risks of
criminality and abuse of innocent civilians. This is true in the case of the armed Chimurenga in
Zimbabwe where the code of conduct named Nzira Dzemasoja where ethical considerations in
war were pronounced to be adhered to by soldiers in combat.

The power of people in public service including the military compared to those they serve is
behind the idea that public service is a public trust and explains why so many governmental and
professional codes impose special obligations which public servants who, as temporary stewards,
exercise public power and authority (Rhode, 2005). The position of public servants is neither
theirs to own, nor is it theirs to keep hence through political or ideological training, principles
and values are imbedded in all ethics and codes of conduct, either implicitly or explicitly.
Therefore, the codes of conduct instilled through ideological training are the elements that
usually call the public servant to a greater purpose.

It is however the negative side of ideological training that it can also be used in the commission
of crime through obedience to orders. For example the Islamic State (IS) used its ideology to
justify the attempted genocide of the Yazidi minority in Iraq and more specifically the systematic
enslavement and rape of Yazidi women (Vale 2020). Also the abduction of Chibok girls in
Nigeria by Boko Haram in obedience to the terrorist ideology is a negative of ideological
training to a soldier which makes him more than a criminal through terrorist commitments.

In conclusion, codes of conduct or codes of behavior that are inculcated through ideological or
political training are designed to anticipate and prevent certain specific types of behavior like
conflict of interest, self-dealing, bribery and inappropriate actions. That is, it details specific
actions in which soldiers are to and not to engage. Therefore a soldier without political or
ideological training is a potential criminal and will not be a candidate in the military.
Adler, E. (1987). The power of ideology: the quest for technological autonomy in Argentina and
Brazil (Vol. 16). Univ of California Press.

Bennet, A., Bennet, D., & Long Lee, S. (2010). Exploring the military contribution to KBD
through leadership and values. Journal of knowledge management, 14(2), 314-330.

Cohen, E. A. (2019). Citizens and soldiers: The dilemmas of military service. Cornell University
Press.

Ficarrotta, J. C. (1997). Are military professionals bound by a higher moral standard?. Armed

Forces & Society, 24(1), 59-75.

Freeden, M. (2013). Emotions, ideology and politics. Journal of Political Ideologies, 18(1), 1-10.

Fuist, T. N. (2014). The dramatization of beliefs, values, and allegiances: Ideological

performances among social movement groups and religious organizations. Social Movement
Studies, 13(4), 427-442.

Green, A. H. (2017). Armed group institutions and combatant socialization: Evidence from El
Salvador. Journal of Peace Research, 54(5), 687-700.

Hackett, J. (1970). The Military in the Service of the State (No. 13). US Air Force Academy.

Hooker Jr, R. D. (2011). Soldiers of the state: Reconsidering American civil-military

relations. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 41(4), 9.

Jordan, A. A., Taylor Jr, W. J., Meese, M. J., & Nielsen, S. C. (2009). American national
security. JHU Press.

Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does.

Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2005). The ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving
guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, J. L. (2015). What is ideology?. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, (77), 9-31.

McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science

Review, 58(2), 361-382.
Rhode, D. L. (2005). Pro bono in principle and in practice: Public service and the professions.
Stanford University Press.

Sartori, G. (1969). Politics, ideology, and belief systems. American Political Science

Review, 63(2), 398-411.

Sparks, A. T. (2015). Political ideology and military service (Doctoral dissertation).

Steger, M. B. (2013). Political ideologies in the age of globalization. The Oxford handbook of

political

Thaler, K. M. (2012). Ideology and violence in civil wars: Theory and evidence from
Mozambique and Angola. Civil Wars, 14(4), 546-567.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In Language & peace (pp. 41-
58). Routledge.

Wood, E. J. (2009). Armed groups and sexual violence: When is wartime rape rare?. Politics &
Society, 37(1), 131-161.