At last the MOD has announced its much trailed new policy on personal behaviour. The UK's position on homosexuals in the military has been untenable for many years, but it took the prospect of a series of expensive compensation claims for unfair dismissal presumably to clinch the argument. As a case study in how not to make policy in difficult areas, this latest tale of delay and compromise does not cover the military and political leadership in glory. Nor is the change to a more enlightened policy on homosexuals the first example of military personnel policy being dragged screaming into the 20th Century. The mounting claims for compensation for servicewomen who had been discharged because of pregnancy was an earlier cause for policy change. Women have found themselves categorised with blacks and gays in terms of their rights within the armed forces. Today, the Services proudly parade the women and ethnic minorities who are serving in appointments where a sea of white male faces was the norm in earlier times.
What lessons should the senior management in
the MOD learn from its handling of equal opportunities and human
rights issues? First, that the armed forces should be treated as
having individual rights on the same basis as citizens of the country
that they are defending. Second, when particular rights have to be
restricted for operational reasons, those restrictions must be legal
and fully justified. Third, once it is clear that a personnel policy
will eventually have to be changed to come into line with either the
law or society's norms, the armed forces should move quickly and
with enthusiasm. Long drawn out changes reinforce a public perception
of a military disconnected from society.