To be sure, the military is a unique institution that may/should not offer the same opportunities for unionization or otherwise the hearing of grievances as in other employment contexts. Militaries are not democratic institutions and fairness is not always forthcoming. Such employment environments present unique difficulties that soldiers have to endure on some level, yet there are of course limits to this. Soldiers do have reasonable expectations of remuneration, perhaps even career advancement, and certainly that the institution they serve is not operated in a corrupt and unlawful manner by superior officers. And where these expectations are not met, there may be justifiable cause for acts of resistance absent other avenues of redress.
As reported in The Guardian and by the Associated Press numerous soldiers of the Bangladesh Rifles (Bangladesh's border security force) revolted against their superior officers, members of the regular army. Two colonels were reportedly killed (amongst many more killed) and others taken hostage, including families of the officers. All of this was purportedely because the officers refused to hear the soldiers' grievances related to salary, career advancement and corruption. According to one soldier: "These army officers have been practically looting our resources for 200 years, [i]t's torture, mental torture, using the fear of losing our jobs." According to another, "Army troops are sent abroad to work in U.N. peacekeeping missions and they get fat salaries," he said. "But they don't take border guard personnel for peacekeeping. That's discrimination."
While such blatant acts of defiance to dominant power within the military structure are not normally tolerated - the response of the newly-elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is particularly interesting and striking. She has offered a general amnesty to those who were involved in the revolt after meeting with 14 representative members of the soldiers who engaged in the resistance. The Prime Minister agreed to consider their grievances if the soldiers acquiesced to laying down their weapons. While time will only tell whether their grievances are properly heard and considered, the circumstances reveal some interesting considerations about the legitimization of resistance and the power of resistance to reshape workplace norms and balances of power.
First, the act of granting an amnesty, in effect pardons these soldiers for their acts of resistance resulting in clear breaches of law and military discipline. While not formally approving/endorsing such conduct, the granting of the amnesty nevertheless legitimizes the soldiers' resistance, not to mention perhaps their grievances respecting salary, career expectations and complaints concerning corruption.
Second, the incident represents a potentially important shift in the power dynamics between the officer corps and the rank members of Bangladesh Rifles. By engaging in these acts of resistance, the officer corps' ability to impose its (abusive) dictates on the soldiers may become limited in two ways. First, it has to fear a future exercise of the soldiers' "resisting power" if it fails to address the soldiers' concerns and to continue abusing their power. Second, any subsequent abuses of power may be handled or addressed by the government itself to avoid a future revolt and result in the termination of their own employment as officers within the military.
Sources Consulted:
No comments:
Post a Comment