Can South Africa still afford its defence force?

You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JEREMY MAGGS: The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) is expected to guard borders, protect maritime interests, support the police, respond to domestic crises and still maintain a credible defence capability. Yet, as you are well aware, its budget is shrinking in real terms. Personnel costs are crowding out operations, and some of its most important equipment exists more convincingly on paper than in the field. So is the country quietly creating a hollow force while still pretending it has full military capability?

I’m in conversation now with Kobus Marais, who’s an independent defence commentator and analyst. Kobus, a very warm welcome to you. In your opinion, then, is the SANDF now being asked to perform a constitutional mandate that it can simply no longer afford?

KOBUS MARAIS: I think it has transpired over many years. We have seen a deterioration in the capabilities of the defence force and a decline in the real increase of the defence force’s budget. For quite some time, there was a defence policy set out exactly what the objectives are and what the funding targets are.

Now, over time, this has decreased significantly over many years. South Africa’s defence budget should be very close to 1.5% of GDP, or the international global benchmark of 2% of GDP. Currently, we are at less than 0.7% of GDP. It is obviously not sustainable.

One must remember that cost of employees is currently well over 70% of the approved budget of the defence force. and that is a fixed cost because, the employees of the defence force have been appointed for a long term. So it’s not just call-up or as we were in our younger days as conscripts. So there’s a fixed commitment of that, and if the budget in real terms decreases, it means that percentage is obviously increasing.

That means that their actual constitutional mandate of protecting the sovereignty of our country, securing the safety of our people is just not possible anymore. As the appetite for constant ad hoc deployment has increased, at the moment there is a problem with any state department, whether it is water affairs, whether it is the police, whether it is border safeguarding, then they call on the defence force to be deployed and all of that is extra cost that is just not sustainable.

So, yes, the constitutional mandate is the same. The appetite for deployment has increased while the resources and the funding have significantly decreased. It is just not sustainable.

JEREMY MAGGS: Kobus, let me pick you up on that 70% of the budget going to personnel. Maybe put that into some context for us and explain to me, does the SANDF have too many people or are pay scales out of kilter?

KOBUS MARAIS: I think neither of the two is really true. There are not necessarily too many people. Yes, you can reduce the defence force’s employment numbers. The scaling is not, I don’t think it’s a problem because you need a professional defence force. But one must remember, if we had a defence budget of 1% of GDP, that would give us another R30 billion for the defence force. That means that the current cost of employee spending would suddenly drop from over 70% of the approved budget to below 50% of the budget.

So yes, there must be restructuring. Yes, the defence force staff is too old, on an average. Yes, they are too expensive. Yes, there are too many people in senior ranks, and the rejuvenation programme is not successful. It’s also not sustainable you can’t go to war with an ageing defence force, but it needs restructuring. It needs reprioritisation and obviously focused on technology rather than just employment. So it’s a combination of these things. It’s not necessarily either the one or the other.

JEREMY MAGGS: You talk about you can’t go to war with an ageing defence force, Kobus. Are you also suggesting that our border protection has weakened considerably by the military just being stretched too thin when it comes to manpower and resourcing?

KOBUS MARAIS: Absolutely, there’s no doubt. Years ago, there were about over 30 defence companies being deployed on the land borders of South Africa. We currently need not less than 25 to 27 companies. Currently there are only five companies. Now that means only the patrolling of the defence force.

Now, physically boots on the ground patrolling is just not adequate and enough anymore. If you can’t support that with technology, with modern technology radars, sensors so that you can deploy soldiers where there are transgressions. So often there are crossings taking place and transgressions taking place on our borders that we just don’t know about because we haven’t got the technology and a full reconnaissance capability to know what is really going on.

I’ve seen it myself on test screens of radars with one of our well-known private sector technology companies, where you can clearly see once the patrol, once the soldier has passed a specific point, then suddenly a whole queue of people is moving across the border unhindered. No problem and the defence force doesn’t even know about that.

JEREMY MAGGS: Kobus, just a final question then. If it’s all about funding, if you give the SANDF more money, is there a risk that you’re rewarding the same failures unless there is serious reform, as you’ve suggested?

KOBUS MARAIS: Let me be clear. More money is not the solution, just more money. Cutting employee cost itself is not a solution. If it’s not accompanied by serious reform, serious reprioritisation, and facing the current threats and future threats, then it is a waste of money.

So just by giving more money, just by giving 1% or 1.5% of GDP will not solve the problem. We have got management problems and challenges. We’ve got executive oversight problems and challenges. We have got technology problems and challenges. We have got prime mission equipment that is old, so without prime mission equipment, without a proper defence industry base supporting the defence force, without a Denel and an Armscor, restructuring and refocus, it will not help.

So all of this needs to happen in relation to each other. Otherwise, it is a waste of money. But yes, we need more money. If there is not more money, you can reprioritise and restructure as much as you want and you will not achieve it because you don’t have the resources.

JEREMY MAGGS: I’m going to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed for the analysis. It is a very worrying situation. Kobus Marais, independent defence analyst, I appreciate your time.