This year’s Bastille Day military parade, and the tension expressed between the political and the military heads of the armed forces, were an interesting illustration of the transformations of our society, and of its fault lines. Between modernity, the society of the spectacle and attachment to traditional figures.
The President of the Republic’s condemnation of the remarks made by the Chief of the Defence Staff – who had criticised planned budget cuts before a parliamentary committee – revealed two camps within the defence community: those who take an interest, closely or from afar, in these very particular issues.
There are those attached to the duty of discretion, whether as a regulatory or a moral obligation. For them, the Chief of the Defence Staff should not have expressed his disagreement with the political decision – even before a small audience, but one the media gave public resonance to. To this camp can be added the political supporters of the current government, for whom dissent, or even doubt, is not welcome.
And there are those for whom the Chief of the Defence Staff’s remarks were legitimate, morally and in regulatory terms, given where they were made. Add to them those who believe the defence budget must be ring-fenced, or even increased, to face the threats to our country and its interests, and the commitments of our forces. And that the urgency of the situation justified speaking out.
On social media, no doubt in the officers’ messes, and after the summer in association cocktail parties, the debate is raging and will rage. Between “ancients” and “moderns”, in a way.
The armed forces: between distinctiveness and normalisation?
Because one of the important questions for the future of our armed forces – technological, certainly, but above all human forces – is that of their distinctiveness, or their normalisation. At a time when communication tools and habits are making normally closed organisations ever more permeable – from companies to “la Grande Muette”, the “Great Silent One”, as the French army is traditionally called.
This is no side issue, because it affects both the armed forces’ ability to recruit talent and willing people, and very operational consequences, in conventional operations as in information warfare.
Should the armed forces preserve their distinctive blind obedience to vertical authority, even when the consequences are dramatic, individually and collectively? Or should they integrate free, horizontal communication, shared leadership and the balance of powers?
The Mediterranean Jupiter/Zeus who rules over the other gods? Or the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon Odin, who must reconcile opposing forces? The vertical organisation, which embodies the function, or the matrix organisation, which provides the resources for the mission?
On the military ground, with the development of information technologies that gave rise to the “revolution in military affairs” more than twenty years ago, the question of the soldier’s autonomy, and that of the commander’s authority, is particularly pressing. Should the commander on the ground keep his capacity for initiative, or should tactical choices be left to the supreme commander, omniscient in front of his screen?
The French Touch – in the armed forces too
And so the final sequence of this 14 July military parade was punctuated by a routine performed by the armed forces’ musicians, playing and illustrating Daft Punk’s hit.
Between ancients and moderns, some will no doubt welcome this image of lightness and adaptability, which delighted the head of State. And perhaps that was the intention: closeness to civil society, and to the “French Touch” that combines creativity and economic success.
A “French Touch” which, in military affairs, is characterised more by pragmatism and the ability to work closely with local populations than by freedom from traditional rigour.
Others will be moved, or scandalised, by this performance which, in their view, may harm the image, the rigour, the memory. And beyond personal feelings on seeing this performance, the judgements and postures to come will also reflect partisan choices.
So should the armed forces stay on their traditional home turf, in their missions as in their forms of expression? Or should they step outside it, to illustrate the bond between the armed forces and the nation through closeness, or even to normalise the nature of military commitment, to make recruitment easier?
Like the question of the duty of discretion, that of the armed forces’ image is a fundamental, endless debate, with its fault lines linked to deep convictions and to everyone’s complex choices.
But what is particularly interesting, this 14 July, is the juxtaposition of the two.
By hammering home a Jupiterian “I am the boss” to his military chiefs – and to the general public through the media – the President of the Republic claims and places himself within tradition. That of the “Great Silent One”, of the obedient civil servant and of the military chief appointed by the Council of Ministers.
So why choose a musical and visual sequence that breaks with tradition?
Some may see in it a trace of schizophrenia. Others the expression of an ego. Others still the sign of complex thinking.
The transformation of the armed forces: a human factor
A first hypothesis is that of a deliberate disconnect between the society of the spectacle and the world of decisions. A time for fun and a time for work – even if media continuity does not help keep the sequences apart.
Another is that of a society struggling to transform, which does not give their full place to human factors and to the practices that give complex organisations the agility and resilience they need.
After all, the service of the State is still, to this day, that of a monolithic structure, whereas individuals, companies and nations must live and survive in a multipolar world.
And if the future of our armed forces has been the point where all this came to a head these past days, let us hope that the transformations under way, and the reactions they provoke, do not lastingly break their cohesion and commitment.
Leave a Reply